Master Thesis

Prepared for the Master of Arts in European Studies

The European Union Global Climate Change Alliance in the Pacific

Submitted by: Annemarie Kunz annemarie.kunz@yahoo.de Date: 25.07.2014 1st Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Scheffran, Jürgen Institute of Geography, University of Hamburg 2nd Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Aisbett, Emma

Department of Economic and Social Sciences, University of Hamburg

II

Abstract

It is widely recognised that the Pacific Small Island Developing States are highly

vulnerable to climate change impacts. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) coined the term 'disappearing islands', which highlights that the small

island states in the Pacific will face extreme environmental and development

challenges, due to a combination of natural and societal factors. The islands' high

vulnerability is a function of their exposure to climate impacts, their sensitivity to

climate change, low resilience and adaptive capacity. Pacific leaders agree that

climate change is the greatest threat to their region and are calling for international

help in adaptation funding.

The Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) was established by the

European Union (EU) in 2007 to strengthen dialogue, exchange of experience and

cooperation on climate change, mainly with Least Developed Countries and Small

Island Developing States. There are two regional and various national projects, which

are conducted by national governments and regional organisations as the University

of the South Pacific (USP), the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and the

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP).

This thesis seeks to investigate the motivation of the EU to invest in the Pacific

region, but more importantly, to gather information about the appropriateness,

effectiveness and sustainability of EU-GCCA support for climate change adaptation in

the Pacific. Questionnaires were sent to experts from around the world, particularly in

the Pacific.

In general, a positive trend could be observed: participants outlined that the

GCCA adaptive measures have so far been appropriate and are trying to involve the

respective communities in decision-making as much as possible. A measurement of

the projects' effectiveness is not yet feasible, as most are still in the implementation

phase. Sustainability is hoped for.

III

Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................... II

Contents ................................................................................................................... III

List of Figures ......................................................................................................... VII

List of Maps ............................................................................................................. VII

List of Tables ........................................................................................................... VII

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Problem Diagnosis ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Research Questions .......................................................................................... 4 1.3 Structure ............................................................................................................ 5

2 Methodology .......................................................................................................... 6

2.1 Overview ........................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Selection of Participants .................................................................................... 7 2.3 Structuring of Questionnaires ............................................................................ 8 2.4 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 9 2.5 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 10

3 The Vulnerability Context ..................................................................................... 11

3.1 International Climate Change Negotiations ...................................................... 11 3.2 Vulnerability ..................................................................................................... 13 3.3 Adaptation ....................................................................................................... 14

4 Description of the Pacific Region ....................................................................... 18

4.1 Physical Geography ........................................................................................ 18 4.2 Social and Economic Characterization ............................................................ 21 4.3 Regional Cooperation ...................................................................................... 24 4.4 Key Impacts and Vulnerabilities Related to Climate Change ........................... 26

4.4.1 Climatic Changes ...................................................................................... 26 4.4.2 Sea-Level Rise ......................................................................................... 27 4.4.3 Ocean Warming and Acidification ............................................................. 28 4.4.4 Natural Hazards ........................................................................................ 29 4.4.5 Health ....................................................................................................... 30 4.4.6 Water Shortage ......................................................................................... 30 4.4.7 Food Insecurity ......................................................................................... 31 4.4.8 Summary: Influence on Livelihood Security .............................................. 32

5 The European Union and the Pacific Small Island Developing States ............ 34

5.1 Pacific-EU Relations ........................................................................................ 34 5.2 Joint Pacific-EU Action against Climate Change ............................................. 37 5.3 The Global Climate Change Alliance ............................................................... 40 5.4 Funding ........................................................................................................... 41 5.5 Regional: Pacific Small Island States Project .................................................. 42 5.6 Regional: Support the EU-GCCA through capacity building, community engagement and applied research ........................................................................ 46

5.6.1 Component 1 – Capacity Building ............................................................. 47

IV

5.6.2 Component 2 – Community Engagement in Adapting to Climate Change 48 5.6.3 Component 3 – Applied Research ............................................................ 49 5.6.4 Project Progress ....................................................................................... 50 5.6.5 Country Priorities and Activities in December 2013 .................................. 52

5.7 National Projects ............................................................................................. 57 5.7.1 Papua New Guinea ................................................................................... 57 5.7.2 Samoa ...................................................................................................... 58 5.7.3 Solomon Islands ....................................................................................... 58 5.7.4 Timor-Leste ............................................................................................... 59 5.7.5 Vanuatu ..................................................................................................... 60

6 Empirical Results ................................................................................................. 61

6.1 Project Impression and Visibility ...................................................................... 61 6.2 Motivation of the EU to Support the Pacific Region ......................................... 64 6.3 Beneficiaries of the GCCA Support ................................................................. 67 6.4 Appropriateness of Adaptive Actions ............................................................... 68 6.5 GCCA-Influence on Social Networks ............................................................... 70 6.6 GCCA-Influence on Regional Actors ............................................................... 72 6.7 Effectiveness and Efficiency of GCCA Support ............................................... 73 6.8 Sustainability ................................................................................................... 76 6.9 General Remarks ............................................................................................ 77

7 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 79

7.1 Project Impression and Visibility ...................................................................... 79 7.2 Motivation of the EU to Support the Pacific Region ......................................... 81 7.3 Beneficiaries of the GCCA Support ................................................................. 84 7.4 Appropriateness of Adaptive Actions ............................................................... 85 7.5 GCCA-Influence on Social Networks ............................................................... 90 7.6 GCCA-Influence on Regional Actors ............................................................... 92 7.7 Effectiveness and Efficiency of GCCA Support ............................................... 93 7.8 Sustainability ................................................................................................... 97

8 Conclusion and Outlook ................................................................................... 104

Bibliography .......................................................................................................... 107

Annex A - Participating Experts in Alphabetical Order ....................................... 114

Annex B - Qualitative Questionnaire A ................................................................ 115

Annex C - Quantitative Questionnaire B .............................................................. 116

Annex D – Overview of Answers from QB ........................................................... 118

V

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific States

AOSIS Alliance of Small Island States

CC Climate Change

CCA Climate Change Adaptation

CFU Climate Funds Update

CLISEC Research Group Climate Change and Security

COP Conference of the Parties

CROP Council of Regional Organisations of the Pacific

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation

EC European Commission

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

FSF Fast-Start Finance

FSM Federated States of Micronesia

GCCA Global Climate Change Alliance

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

ICC In-Country Coordinator

ICZ Intertropical Convergence Zone

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LDC Least Developed Country

LMCCA Locally Managed Climate Change Adaptation

MDG Millennium Development Goal

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NPAC National Project Advisory Committee

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

PACE-SD Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development

PICCAP Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistance Programme

PCCR Pacific Climate Change Roundtable

PIC Pacific Island Country

VI

PIF Pacific Islands Forum

PIFACC Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change

PIFS Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

PNG Papua New Guinea

PSIDS Pacific Small Island Developing State

R&D Research and Development

RIM Republic of the Marshall Islands

ROM Results Oriented Monitoring

SIDS Small Island Developing State

SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission

SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

SPCZ South Pacific Convergence Zone

SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Programme

UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USP University of the South Pacific

WMO World Meteorological Organisation

WPM West Pacific Monsoon

VII

List of Figures

Figure 3.3 Adaptation and other responses to climate change ............................. 16 Figure 4.4.3 Coral bleaching in Tahiti ....................................................................... 29 Figure 6.1a Bar chart of answers to QB1 ................................................................ 63 Figure 6.1b Bar chart of answers to QB10 .............................................................. 63 Figure 6.2 QB2 Motives of the EU to Support ....................................................... 66 Figure 6.3 Bar chart of answers to QB3 ................................................................ 68 Figure 6.4 Bar chart of answers to QB4 ................................................................ 69 Figure 6.5a Bar chart of answers to QB5 ................................................................ 71 Figure 6.5b Bar chart of answers to QB6 ................................................................ 71 Figure 6.6 Bar chart of answers to QB7 ................................................................ 73 Figure 6.7 Bar chart of answers to QB8 ................................................................ 75 Figure 6.8 Bar chart of answers to QB9 ................................................................ 77

List of Maps

Map 4 The Pacific Region ............................................................................... 18 Map 4.1 Average positions of climate features in November to April ................. 19 Map 4.4.2 Regional distribution of sea-level rise .................................................. 27

List of Tables

Table 2.3a Qualitative Questionnaire A .................................................................... 8 Table 2.3b Quantitative Questionnaire B .................................................................. 9 Table 5.6.4 Evaluation 2012 and 2013 .................................................................... 51 Table 6.1 QA3 Summary of comments on project knowledge .............................. 62 Table 6.2a QA1 Summary of comments on motivation .......................................... 64 Table 6.2b Answers to QB2 .................................................................................... 66 Table 6.3 QA2 Summary of comments on benefit ................................................ 67 Table 6.4 QA6 Summary of comments on appropriateness ................................. 68 Table 6.5 QA4 Summary of comments on social networks .................................. 70 Table 6.6 QA5 Summary of comments on regional actors ................................... 72 Table 6.7a QA7 Summary of comments on effectiveness ...................................... 74 Table 6.7b QA8 Summary of comments on efficiency ............................................ 75 Table 6.8 QA9 Summary of comments on sustainability ...................................... 76 Table 7.4 Identified priorities versus adaptive actions .......................................... 85

1

1 Introduction

In recent decades, changes in climate have caused impacts on natural and

human systems on all continents and across the oceans. (IPCC WGII 2014, 6)

1.1 Problem Diagnosis

The scientific community recognises climate change1 as one of the main challenges

of the twenty-first century. One of its principal causes is increasing concentrations of

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which in turn result in higher air temperatures,

higher sea surface temperatures, a rise of sea levels, and changes in precipitation. In

addition, the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones and other climate related

natural disasters are likely to increase. (Yamamoto and Esteban 2014, 1) These

threats have been documented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC), which recently published its Fifth Assessment Report on climate change

impacts, mitigation and adaptation.

Although contributing the least to it, the Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

in the Pacific region2 are recognised to be among the most vulnerable places to

climate change. Climate change is likely to change the ecology of SIDS drastically

and threaten their existence. (Gillespie 2003, 113, 128) The expression 'disappearing

islands' emerged out of the IPCC report because they are especially vulnerable to

sea-level rise as a result of climate change. (Cameron 2011, 873)

Since the 1990s, the media around the world commenced to report about these

islands in the Pacific and identified them as the first potential victims of large-scale

climate change. (Yamamoto and Esteban 2014, 106) They were operationalised as

evidence for climate change actually taking place and fuelled a debate on who is

authorised and responsible to save them and their inhabitants. Additionally, some

criticise that climate change might distract from other development challenges which

need to be addressed as well. As the effects of climate change will probably be felt

for the next millennium even if all human-related greenhouse gas emissions stopped

today, it must factor in development assistance. (Kelman 2013, 1)

1 Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the

mean and/or the variability of properties, and that persists to an extended period, typically decades or longer. It may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. (IPCC WGII 2014, 4)

2 In this thesis, the Pacific region includes the following 15 countries: Cook Islands, Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Republic of Marshall Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

2

Climatic changes vary across the diverse region, but extreme events such as

floods or droughts are common outcomes everywhere. Climate change sets off a

chain of interrelated impacts and exacerbates tensions over land, food and energy

prices, and creates migratory pressures and desertification. Entire states could

become uninhabitable or disappear, resulting in displacement of populations and

migration. (EC 2012a, 5) As the habitability of the territories themselves is

threatened, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Pacific states might be endangered

too. (Maas and Carius 2012, 652)

In general, poor countries have to bear a disproportionate burden from climate

change as they are unable to conduct adaptive measures without support.

[D]eveloping countries... have lesser capacity to adapt and are more vulnerable to climate change damages, just as they are to other stresses. This condition is most extreme among the poorest people. (IPCC 2001, 8)

SIDS have a limited adaptive capacity due to limited access to technology, education

and other resources. Further challenges are remoteness, high population densities,

resource exploitation and relative size. (Weir and Orcherton 2013, 61–63) Thus, they

are increasingly recognised in international environmental law. (Gillespie 2003, 107)

After the setback of international mitigation efforts at the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in Copenhagen in

2009, adaptation to climate change has gained increasing attention. (Heuson et al.

2013, 2) As it has been reluctantly acknowledged that emissions reduction will

probably not decrease at the rate necessary to prevent climate change, adaptation

has become a more visible and pressing option in the last decade. Adaptation is

increasingly considered an important factor to reduce vulnerability to climate change.

(USP 2011, 8, 9) This is evident from scientific publications assessing climate change

impacts, vulnerability and adaptive possibilities which more than doubled between

2005 and 2010. (IPCC WGII 2014, 4)

Under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, provisions exist on assisting the

countries that are the most vulnerable and least able to adapt. Various developed

states and the European Union (EU) who are parties to the UNFCCC pledged to

support the most vulnerable states to mitigate and adapt to climate change as an

important part, in addition to and also as a precondition for development. The

majority of climate change adaptation funding in the Pacific comes from Australia, the

EU, Germany, Japan, Korea, the Unites States, China and the World Bank through

the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (USP 2011, 22)

3

According to the European Commissioner for Development, Andris Piebalgs,

Pacific Islands are the first victims of climate change, which hampers their development and threatens peoples' lives. As the largest donor, the EU is taking upon its global responsibilities and will continue to express its solidarity with the poor and vulnerable citizens of these small islands. (EC 2012b)

The EU was comparatively inactive in the region since the end of colonialism, but has

renewed interest and developed its first ever Strategy for the Pacific in 2006. The

islands belong to the African Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP), a group

of developing countries which signed an agreement on trade and development aid

(the Cotonou Agreement) with the EU. (EC 2006) Since 2009, the EU is also lending

support for climate change related issues to the region; which is at the core of the

EU-Pacific partnership. This thesis focusses on the support of the Global Climate

Change Alliance (GCCA).

The GCCA was established by the EU in 2007 to strengthen dialogue,

exchange experiences and boost cooperation on climate change, mainly with Least

Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States. The Initiative is financed

through the EU budget, the 10th European Development Fund and EU member

states. €38 Million have so far been allotted to projects in the Pacific, which is about

17% of the total €230 Million spent by the GCCA. There are two regional projects and

various national, which are conducted by national governments and regional

organisations such as the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), the Secretariat of the Pacific

Community (SPC) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment

Programme (SPREP). (GCCA 2012a)

One of the regional projects is called Support the EU-GCCA through capacity

building, community engagement and applied research, includes 15 states and is

implemented by the Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development

(PACE-SD) of the University of the South Pacific (USP). It aims at developing and

strengthening the region's capacity to adapt by improving the level of understanding

of climate change. The other regional programme, GCCA: Pacific Small Island

States, implemented by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, supports the

governments of nine of the smaller island states. Its main objective is to bring climate

change adaptation into the mainstream. The national projects deal with Vanuatu,

Papua New Guinea, Samoa and the Solomon Islands. (GCCA 2012b; GCCA 2012c)

4

The importance and topicality of the issue is demonstrated by the international

attention the Pacific SIDS and other regions vulnerable to climate change receive.

2014 was declared the international year of Small Island Developing States, to

mobilise international interest and support for sustainable development in these

countries. Non-SIDS United Nations (UN) member states are needed to pay attention

to the issues of SIDS, and especially to climate change and sea-level rise. Thus, the

third UN Conference on Small Island Developing States is taking place in Samoa in

the beginning of September 2014. (SIDS Unit, UNDESA 2013, 1, 2; UNDESA 2014)

Unfortunately, not much literature evaluating the GCCA and its impact is

currently available. There are publications of the EU, cooperating institutions and

organisations on climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the Pacific in general,

but few going into detail. This thesis seeks to provide an introduction to the work of

the GCCA in the Pacific and an overview of the opinions of experts from the field on

various aspects of its work.

1.2 Research Questions

The objective of this master thesis is to gather insights into the work of the GCCA in

the Pacific and its image among experts from the field of climate change adaptation.

Most importantly, it enquires into the motivation of the EU to invest in the Pacific

region, the effectiveness, appropriateness and sustainability of the GCCA’s adaptive

activities. Thus, the guiding questions are:

What is the opinion of experts from the field of climate change adaptation on the adaptation support of the GCCA in the Pacific?

What is the motivation of the EU to finance climate change adaptation in the Pacific?

Who benefits from GCCA support?

Are the projects of the GCCA appropriate?

With whom does the GCCA cooperate in the region to implement its projects? Which social networks are created through the work of the GCCA?

How does the GCCA influence regional and national actors in the Pacific?

Are the projects of the GCCA effective? Do people benefiting from GCCA support become more resilient to climate change?

Are the projects of the GCCA sustainable? Will they be pursued by local people?

5

1.3 Structure

This thesis commences describing the applied methodology and its limitations. The

third chapter gives a brief overview of international climate change negotiations and

introduces the climate change related terms vulnerability and adaptation. Following,

the physical geography, social and economic characteristics and key impacts and

vulnerabilities of the Pacific region are described. The fifth chapter comprises an

elaboration of Pacific-EU relations in general and on climate change in detail, and

continues with an introduction of the GCCA. The initiative’s regional and national

projects are presented and evaluated in as much detail as the available sources

allow. Subsequently, the empirical results of the conducted questionnaires are

presented and then discussed in the seventh chapter. Finally, the thesis is summed

up with a conclusion.

6

2 Methodology

2.1 Overview

In this chapter, the methodology applied in this study to answer the research

questions is discussed. One aim is to examine the opinion of experts in climate

change adaptation worldwide and stakeholders in the region towards the GCCA.

Another is to investigate into the motivation of the EU to support the Pacific region in

this issue; and a third one is whether the initiatives work is seen effective, inclusive

and sustainable.

To acquire this information, a first theoretical working phase consisted of

literature research on vulnerability, adaptation, international climate change

negotiations, the region itself, on key vulnerabilities, adaptive measures, the

European Global Climate Change Alliance and its programmes in the Pacific.

Sources covered internet research, research articles in peer-reviewed journals,

political statements, newspaper articles, official EU documents, reports of regional

organisations in the Pacific, reports of the EU, the GCCA, the IPCC and international

organisations such as Oxfam.

As a lack of opinion on GCCA work persists in available resources, a

questionnaire was conducted in a second phase. Initially, this phase was supposed to

consist solely of a qualitative questionnaire, so as to enable people to individually

state their opinions, perceptions and suggestions on the work of the GCCA. Thus, a

first round of 50 questionnaires with the offer to provide either written answers or take

part in a Skype interview3 was sent around. As only few people participated and sent

written answers, a second quantitative questionnaire was developed on the same

core questions and sent around two weeks later. The purpose of this change of

methodology was to enable a methodological comparison and attract more

participants to acquire a comprehensive trend picture.

So far, there has been no extensive official study on this EU initiative, which is

fully operating in the Pacific region since 2011. Therefore, this thesis provides an

introduction to the work of the GCCA initiative in the Pacific region and tries to give a

first impression of opinions on its work. However, to properly assess its success, a

field study would be necessary after more years have passed, so as to be able to

evaluate whether Pacific countries have become more resilient. Following, the

selection process of participants is illustrated.

3 No one considered a Skype interview.

7

2.2 Selection of Participants

Qualitative and quantitative questionnaires were sent out via e-mail to collect data of

expert opinions on the research questions. Participants included a variety of people

in contact with the work of the GCCA in the Pacific and climate change adaptation in

general. These people are working for NGOs, international organisations, EU

institutions, governments, research institutions and regional organisations worldwide

and in the Pacific. Thus, a comprehensive trend picture from various angles should

be established.

The search for experts was conducted through internet research on academic

and professional institutions focussed on climate change adaptation and through

tracking down authors of relevant sources. In the first round, 50 experts were

contacted with an exposé of the thesis and the qualitative questionnaire. Eight

questionnaires were answered, which was considered to be an amount too small to

say something about a trend of opinion among experts on the issue. The low

response is partly due to lack of knowledge on the GCCA especially in Europe4,

partly due to lack of time. One person refused to answer the questionnaire because

the questions were too subjective and politically sensitive.

Therefore, a second quantitative questionnaire was developed, which would

be much less time consuming. It was sent around to the experts of the first round

who gave 'no time' as reason for lacking answers and those who did not respond.

After further research, another 50 experts were contacted and received both

questionnaires. This time, response was much higher, so that in the end, 25

quantitative responses were received.

Thus, in total, 33 answers could be collected from 28 people (as five answered

both), consequently some more detailed and fruitful than others, due to difference in

knowledge, origin and position. 27 of 100 contacted experts declined participation,

the rest did not respond at all. It could generally be noticed, that experts on climate

change adaptation in Europe and other parts of the world not working in the Pacific

region, have a different focus of research. Thus, most participants either originated

from the Pacific or were based there because of their work.

Participants come from SPREP, Gesellschaft für Internationale

Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), USP, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), HAW-HH,

SPC, Germanwatch, and other institutions (see Annex A). There is an obvious bias

4 In Europe, research on climate change adaptation does not focus on the Pacific region.

8

towards experts based in the Pacific region. Additionally, the major input in literature

research as well as in the questionnaires comes from the regional project Support to

the EU-GCCA through capacity building, community engagement and applied

research, as this is the project best documented online, with sufficient reports and

information. Additionally, many In-Country Coordinators (ICCs) of that project

answered the questionnaire. Other projects did not offer contact information on

people working directly in the project sites. Upon finalisation of the thesis, a summary

of results will be sent to all participants.

2.3 Structuring of Questionnaires

Despite the comparatively low number of participants and the author's inability to

travel to the region to conduct face-to-face interviews with stakeholders, the

questionnaire was an important possibility to gain some initial insight into expert

opinions on the work of the GCCA, which is not available in written sources.

In both rounds, experts were presented with standardised questionnaires

containing nine or ten questions. The first questionnaire (Annex B) was qualitative,

leaving participants more freedom to refer to issues most important to them in the

concerning question and also to collect new ideas to certain issues. The second

questionnaire (Annex C) was quantitative, providing less freedom of answer to

participants, but took less time to be filled in.

Table 2.3a Qualitative Questionnaire A

QA1 What is, to your opinion, the motivation for the EU to support climate change adaptation in the world generally, and specifically, in the Pacific Small Developing States? What do you think are the EU's main interests in the region?

QA2 Who benefits how from GCCA adaptation?

QA3 Which specific project/s do you know and what do you like or not like about them? (Do you know about progress and success of (one of) the projects?)

QA4 Which social networks are created nationally and regionally through GCCA support? With which organisations/ offices is the EU cooperating? Is new cooperation between actors in the region established?

QA5 Are national/ regional actors strengthened or weakened through GCCA support?

QA6 Do you think that GCCA projects have so far been appropriate? (Where do you see the focus of the work of the GCCA? Does it address the needs of the people in the region to reduce their vulnerability to climate change?)

QA7 How effective have the adaptive measures of the GCCA been so far? (How well did it meet its objectives? Do states become more resilient and gain adaptive capacity?)

QA8 Have they been efficient? (How well inputs such as funds and time were converted into outputs? Does the money actually reach communities?)

QA9 Sustainability: Are the projects of a long-term or short-term nature? (Do you think they will persist after the end of the project period and be continued by local people? Is it help to help themselves?)

9

Table 2.3b Quantitative Questionnaire B

QB1 Do you have a positive or negative impression of the work of the GCCA?

QB2 What is your estimate for the importance of the following reasons as motivation of EU support in climate change adaptation? (prestige, resources, influence, confession of guilt, altruism)

QB3 Does the support of the GCCA reach many vulnerable (in terms of climate change) people in the Pacific?

QB4 Do the projects of the GCCA act in accordance to the needs of the local people in matters of climate change issues?

QB5 Does the EU cooperate closely with regional organisations and institutions?

QB6 Does the GCCA support networking of regional actors in the Pacific or does it rather constrain them?

QB7 Does the work of the GCCA strengthen or weaken the political and economic influence of national/ regional actors?

QB8 Do you have the impression that Pacific States become more resilient and gain adaptive capacity or become more vulnerable?

QB9 Does the work of the GCCA facilitate independence or does it create dependence?

QB10 Do you have the impression that the local population perceives GCCA support as such (Visibility)?

Questions in both were tried to be close to each other. Nevertheless, there had to be

some variation in the way of asking, due to the differing method. As it was expected

that response to a questionnaire conducted via e-mail would be generally low and

because of the generally full time table of professionals in this area of study, both

questionnaires were kept rather short.

Questions asked for the impression on the work of the GCCA, the motivation

of the EU to support the region, appropriateness, effectiveness, networking with

regional bodies, sustainability and visibility. The final question in both allowed for

additional aspects not addressed in the questionnaire or general remarks on the

questions. However, it was never used to make any comment. The last question on

prestige of the first questionnaire was left out after the first responses, due to

misunderstanding and because the fact would be named by respondents in the

motivation question if important.

2.4 Data Analysis

For organisational purposes, the first qualitative questionnaire was renamed into

Questionnaire A, the questions it contained into QA1, QA2, … . To ensure

anonymity5, respondents were renamed A1, A2, … . The same was done with the

5 Statements cannot be traced back to individual interview partners.

10

second quantitative questionnaire, renamed Questionnaire B, with questions QB1,

QB2, … . Participants were labelled B1, B2, … .

During and after collecting responses, answers were organised. For the

received data of Questionnaire A, tables were generated, providing a summary of

comments on each question to identify trends in responses. The table is structured

into the number of respondent, the relevant part of his or her answer and the

quintessence. For Questionnaire B, data was first entered into Excel and then

transferred into SPSS (version 22) to create bar diagrams for the visualization of

answers. Question QB2 on motivation was visualised with a net diagram as it

included several aspects which could be displayed easier this way. A table with an

overview of answered questions can be found in Annex D. The missing answers in

both questionnaires were simply left out. For the quantitative questionnaire, they can

easily be computed as the total number of participants is known.

The result part was divided into topics, to which the respective questions were

assorted. For each question there is either a table or a diagram. Concerning the

diagrams, the y-axe contains the number of answers in per cent, the x-axe shows the

categories of the respective question. Naturally, some questions are more meaningful

than others. The final discussion of the research questions is conducted through

empirical analysis of questionnaire responses in combination with literature research

to provide a comprehensive overview as there is only a limited number of total

responses.

2.5 Limitations

Unfortunately, only a limited number of responses could be collected from both

questionnaires. It is difficult to reach people via e-mail, one should make a field trip to

the region to compile a representative and elaborate study. This is why this study is

to be seen only as an introduction and first impression on the GCCA and its work in

the Pacific. Additionally, it has to be taken into consideration that the Pacific Region is

a vast area which cannot be generalised about. Climatic conditions, physical

geography, ethnic background and other issues vary greatly. However, it is still

possible to observe a trend from collected answers, which is rather positive.

11

3 The Vulnerability Context

3.1 International Climate Change Negotiations

Climate change has been the subject of an international debate for the last decades.

The focus on mitigation of chlorofluorocarbon gas emissions shifted to the effects of

greenhouse gases (GHG)6 on global warming. The First Assessment Report of the

IPCC in 1990 documented the threat of the consequences of GHG-induced climate

change and led to the establishment of the UNFCCC in 1992. (Weir and Orcherton

2013, 57) It established a general framework for intergovernmental efforts to deal

with impacts related to climate change and has been adopted by 195 parties7, who

committed themselves to voluntary non-binding reductions in GHG emissions to

prevent anthropogenic climate change. For this purpose, the Kyoto Protocol8 was

adopted in 1997 as a legal instrument to fight global warming by reducing GHG

emissions. It entered into force in 2005 and was signed by 186 parties. (Yamamoto

and Esteban 2014, 105–108)

Already in 1988, the IPCC was set up as a scientific intergovernmental body

by the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP) to provide authoritative scientific and technical

information on climate change. It consists of three working groups covering physical

science, impacts and adaptation, and mitigation. (Weir and Orcherton 2013, 52) So

far, five Assessment Reports have been written.

The major input for this thesis comes from Working Group 2, assessing

impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. The latest report evaluates how patterns of risk9

and potential benefits are shifting due to climate change. (IPCC WGII 2014, 3) From

the first report, the point that global warming is heavily influenced by human activities

6 Such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride 7 Parties to the UNFCCC are divided into three categories. Annex I parties are industrialised countries

that were members of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and countries with economies in transition. Annex II parties consist solely of the OECD members of Annex I. They are mostly responsible for GHG emissions and maintain the financial resources to support developing countries to mitigate and to adapt. Non-Annex I parties are mostly developing countries especially vulnerable to climate change. (UNFCCC 2014a)

8 37 industrialised Annex-I countries committed themselves to reduce four GHGs. As the Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012, it was amended in Doha at COP18 to continue from 2013 for 8 years. Negotiations are taking place to establish a succeeding treaty, but they are hindered by a lack of ambition. (Yamamoto and Esteban 2014, 108-110) One reason is the uncertainty about the reactivity of climate to the increase of GHGs and the uncertainty about the intensity of climate change. Furthermore, uncertainties about future vulnerability, exposure and responses of interlinked human and natural systems are large. (IPCC WGII 2014, 11)

9 New focus: Risk as potential for consequences where something of value is at stake and where the outcome is uncertain, recognizing the diversity of values. Risk of climate-related impacts results from the interaction of climate-related hazards with the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems. (IPCC WGII 2014, 3–5)

12

has been emphasised. It is generally accepted that the release of GHGs into the

atmosphere is causing part of the global warming currently observed. (Yamamoto

and Esteban 2014, 107)

All Pacific Island Countries (PICs) are parties to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto

Protocol. A variety of intergovernmental regional organisations provide support and

technical assistance to enable them to meet the treaty obligations. Furthermore, the

Barbados Programme of Action10 was adopted in 1994 at the first global conference

on the sustainable development of SIDS. It was followed by the Mauritius Strategy in

2005, which set the terms for a further implementation of the Barbados Programme

of Action. This is the only international strategy solely focussed on the needs of SIDS.

(USP 2011, 15–20)

Under the UNFCCC, several Least Developed Countries (LDCs) of the PICs11

developed a National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA)12, to enable them to

identify priority activities to respond to urgent and immediate needs to adapt to

climate change and communicate them to the Conference of the Parties (COP).

(USP 2011, 21–28) Additionally, all non-Annex I parties must report on the steps they

are taking to implement the Convention in a National Communication, which

emphasise the urgency for adaptation and financial support. (UNFCCC 2014b) Each

of the Pacific SIDS has produced an Initial National Communication which describes

basic geographic features, vulnerabilities to climate change and measures taken or

desired to take to become more resilient. (Weir and Orcherton 2013, 52)

10 Addresses economic, environmental and social developmental vulnerabilities of islands and outlines

a strategy to mitigate these vulnerabilities. 11 Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu are classified as LDCs by the UN. 12 Main content of a NAPA: synthesis of available information, participatory assessment of vulnerability

to current climate variability and extreme events of areas where risks would increase due to climate change. Key adaptive measures and criteria for prioritising activities are identified. A selection of priority activities is short-listed. Its purpose is to facilitate the development of proposals for the implementation of the NAPA. (UNFCCC 2014b) All NAPAs can be accessed on the UNFCCC website.

13

3.2 Vulnerability

The IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report defines vulnerability as:

[T]he degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change13, including climate variability and extremes. Vulnerability is a function of the character, magnitude, and rate of climate change and variation to which a system is exposed14, its sensitivity15, and its adaptive capacity16. (IPCC 2007, 21)

The most recent Fifth Assessment Report provides a more general definition:

Vulnerability is the propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. [It] encompasses a variety of concepts and elements including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt. (IPCC WGII 2014, 4)

Furthermore, the IPCC argues that

High vulnerability often stems from the combination of natural and societal factors, whereby social vulnerability in most cases is dependent on development status. Increased access to wealth and technology enhances adaptive capacity, while poverty curtails it. A lack of adaptive capacity is often the crucial factor creating vulnerability, which is why developing countries carry the major burden of climate-related events. (Nicholls et al. 2007, 336, 337)

Countries, regions, economic sectors and social groups differ in their degree of

vulnerability to climate change, because climate change impacts will be unevenly

distributed around the world. Poor regions have and will have difficulty responding to

climate change, as climate-related hazards will exacerbate other stressors. (Olmos

2001, 3, 4; IPCC WGII 2014, 8) Moreover, non-climatic factors and multidimensional

inequalities due to uneven development processes are responsible for differences in

13 Energy received from the sun is partially reflected back into space. However, because of

greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, much of this energy is retained and keeps the planet much warmer. An increase in greenhouse gas emissions can lead to anthropogenic climate change. The concentration of CO2 nearly doubled compared to the concentration at pre-industrial times and is still rising. If concentrations can be kept below 450ppm, global temperature rise might not exceed 2 – 2.4°C. (Yamamoto and Esteban 2014, 31-36)

14 Exposure is the presence of people, livelihoods, species or ecosystems, environmental functions, services, and resources, infrastructure, or economic, social, or cultural assets in places and settings that could be adversely affected. (IPCC WGII 2014, 4)

15 Sensitivity is the degree to which a system is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by climate-related stimuli. Climate-related stimuli encompass all the elements of climate change, including mean climate characteristics, climate variability, and the frequency and magnitude of extremes. The effect may be direct (e.g., a change in crop yield in response to a change in the mean, range, or variability of temperature) or indirect (e.g., damages caused by an increase in the frequency of coastal flooding due to sea-level rise). (IPCC 2001, 6)

16 Adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to develop for the purpose of accommodating to climate change impacts or expanding the range of variability with which it can cope. Adaptive capacity is especially low when there is a lack of physical, economic and institutional capacities to reduce climate-related risks. (Nicholls et al. 2007, 344) It is often measured through vulnerability assessments. According to the WHO, adaptive capacity is determined by economic wealth, technology, information, skills, infrastructure, institutions and equity. (Mimura et al 2007, 704)

14

vulnerability and exposure. (IPCC WGII 2014, 7)

Islands face multiple stressors and can thus be assumed to be more at risk

from climate change. Their vulnerability is created through interaction of four

interrelated factors: socio-economic stressors17, geo-physical characteristics, socio-

ecological stressors18 and climate-induced stressors. (Nurse et al. 2014, 22, 23) All

these dimensions of vulnerability need to be assessed to understand island

vulnerability. (Rasmussen et al. 2011, 44) Currently, islands rely on eternal aid to turn

the challenges of climate change into opportunities. (Maas and Carius 2012, 661)

Media reports and policy discussions on the region are frequently dominated

by a discourse of sinking islands, which shifts the focus away from opportunities to

reduce vulnerability. Rather, climate change should be placed high on the agenda

with all other development concerns, which are as important as climate change.

(Kelman 2013, 1–7)

3.3 Adaptation

“Throughout history, people and societies have adjusted to and coped with climate,

climate variability and extremes with varying degrees of success.“ (IPCC WGII 2014,

8) Within the UNFCCC, it is now widely recognised that adaptation is a core

component of the response to global climate change and that those countries that

are the least able to adapt need assistance.19 Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the convention

explicitly mention funding and transfer of technology to meet the concerns and needs

of developing country parties that originate from climate change. Adaptation has thus

become one of the key developing country issues in the context of climate

negotiations20. The incorporation of climatic impacts in the formulation and

implementation of national and international development initiatives makes

development more sustainable and reduces vulnerability to climate change. (Olmos

2001, 11)

Among several definitions of adaptation in the climate change literature, this

one is applied for this paper as it encompasses the most important aspects:

Adaptation is a process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its

17 Challenges of managing urbanization, pollution and sanitation. 18 Reduce the ability of socio-ecological systems to bounce back after shocks, e.g. habitat loss and

degradation, invasive species, overexploitation, pollution, human encroachment and disease. 19 The cost of implementing adaptation activities in SIDS is often prohibitive of a country's economic

wealth. (Mimura et al 2007, 706) 20 Before, most efforts to address climate change have focused on mitigation to limit GHG emissions

as a result of human activity. The importance of adaptation grew, because most people agree that changes to climate patterns became inevitable.

15

effects. In human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate and its effects. (IPCC WGII 2014, 3)

Adaptation is a dynamic process requiring awareness raising, mainstreaming of

climate change into government policies, acquiring knowledge and data and

community capacity building and training. (USP 2011, 14) It can be passive, reactive

or anticipatory; it can be planned or spontaneous.

According to the IPCC Third Assessment Report,

[a]daptation has the potential to reduce adverse impacts of climate change and to enhance beneficial impacts, but will incur costs and will not prevent all damages. […] Planned adaptation can supplement autonomous adaptation, though options and incentives are greater for adaptation of human systems than for adaptation to protect natural systems. Adaptation is a necessary strategy at all scales to complement climate change mitigation efforts. (IPCC 2001, 6–8)

The occurrence and nature of adaptation is influenced by a system's vulnerability,

sensitivity, resilience21, susceptibility22 and adaptive capacity. Human organisations

and institutions often play crucial roles in minimizing the adverse impacts of climate

change. Additionally, adaptation is important for assessments of potential impacts of

climate change. Technical advances, institutional arrangements, the availability of

financing and information exchange are crucial factors for the success of adaptation.

(Olmos 2001, 6–11)

Many ways of adaptation do exist, which reduce socio-economic

vulnerabilities, build adaptive capacity, enhance disaster risk reduction and build

longer term climate resilience. (McGray, Hammil, and Bradley 2007, 17pp) A decision

of the COP divided adaptive activities in three stages. Stage I includes planning and

studies of impacts of climate change to identify vulnerable regions and to identify

policy options for adaptation and capacity building. Stage II involves preparatory

measures for adaptation and stage III implies measures to facilitate adequate

adaptation. (Olmos 2001, 13)

Financial aid for adaptation has increased since the failed UNFCCC

21 Capacity of social, economic, and environmental systems to cope with a hazardous event or trend

or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in ways that maintain their essential function, identity, and structure, while also maintaining the capacity for adaptation, learning, and transformation. (IPCC WGII 2014, 5)

22 Degree to which a system is susceptible to climate stimuli. Resilience of Pacific Small Island States seems to originate from a belief in own capacity, familiarity with their environment and understanding of what is needed to adapt. (Kuruppu and Liverman 2011, 10; Tompkins, Hurlston, and Poortinga 2009, 270pp)

16

negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009. However, according to the IPCC, adaptation in

2007 took place on a limited basis. Measures undertaken included policies,

investment in infrastructure, technologies and behavioural change. Most of the time,

they are not undertaken in response to climate change alone, but embedded in

broader sectoral initiatives. (Adger, Agrawala, and Mirza 2007, 719–727) Developing

countries demand that climate change finance should be new and additional to

existing development aid. However, developed countries are often reluctant to

provide this assistance because of the uncertainty associated with adaptation, its

costs and the lesser number of climate change affected countries. (Yamamoto and

Esteban 2014, 80, 81)

Currently, climate change adaptation frequently is conducted in combination

with disaster risk reduction (DRR). DRR reduces disaster risk through analysis and

management of the causal factors of disasters. It reduces the exposure to hazards23,

the vulnerability of people and assets, and improves the environmental management

of land and disaster preparedness. DRR focusses on risks related to all categories of

hazards, not only climate change. (Hay 2012, ii–4)

Figure 3.3 Adaptation and other responses to climate change (Hay 2012, 10)

23 Hazard: potential occurrence of a natural or human-induced physical event or trend or physical

impact that may cause loss of life, injury, or other health impacts, as well as damage and loss to property, infrastructure, livelihoods, service provision, ecosystems, and environmental resources. (IPCC WGII 2014, 3)

17

Climate finance structures contain an abundance of overlapping global,

multilateral, bilateral and national funds and are not easily accessible. Countries

intending to obtain assistance need to understand the wide range of funds, what they

are for and how to apply for them. They usually have different criteria, characteristics

and objectives, implying that the application process begins anew with every fund.

Processes for determining who receives what from whom have become increasingly

difficult since the recognition of the need for climate adaptation finance has grown.

(Ewing 2013)

18

4 Description of the Pacific Region

Map 4 The Pacific Region (Map created by the author)

4.1 Physical Geography

In this thesis, the term Pacific Islands refers to the group of Pacific ACP States24;

islands in the Pacific Ocean, north easterly of Australia. The respective states are the

Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue,

Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), the Republic of Marshall Islands (RMI), Samoa,

the Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste25, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. They belong to

three sub-regions, namely Micronesia26, Polynesia27 and Melanesia28, and share

cultural history. Figure 4 depicts a map of the region.

They show a high diversity in both physical and human attributes (Nurse et al.

2014, 3), are spread over a vast region of the Pacific Ocean and are located in the

equatorial zone between the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn, and thus belong to the

warm tropics with humid climate. The annual average temperature is about 27°C and

the amount of annual rainfall is about 3000mm. In July, the region receives between

100 and 200mm of rainfall, in January about 200 to 300mm. (Zahn 1996, 218–227)

The meteorological services in the region are comparatively small with limited

24 ACP: Africa, Caribbean, Pacific States are developing states who cooperate with the EU 25 Geographically belongs to Southeast Asia, but is subsumed by the GCCA into the Pacific Region 26 Micronesia, “black islands”: Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau

(there are more Micronesian, Polynesian and Melanesian countries, only the ones relevant for my thesis will be named) States usually consist of larger land masses with larger populations, more natural resources and greater ethno-cultural diversity. (USP 2011, 11)

27 Polynesia, “many islands”: Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu; Is the largest of the three sub-regions, with small islands which contain relatively homogeneous cultures and greater social cohesion. (USP 2011, 11)

28 Melanesia, “small islands”: Fiji, PNG, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu; Most islands situated north of the equator and are mostly small, low-lying, geographically scattered with few resources. (USP 2011, 11)

19

resources, budgets and staff. They are overwhelmed by policy issues and operational

requirements29 and hence, have limited ability to undertake environmental planning

and provide advice to governments. (WMO 2014)

The climate of the Pacific Islands and Timor-Leste is influenced by the South

Pacific Convergence Zone30 (SPCZ), the Intertropical Convergence Zone31 (ICZ) and

the West Pacific Monsoon32 (WPM) which can be seen in Figure 4.1. All of them are

caused by winds converging over warm water, producing thunderstorm activity and

high rainfall. These prominent large-scale climate features influence seasonal rainfall

and result in wet seasons from May to October and dry seasons from November to

April in the Northern Hemisphere. They meet over the West Pacific Warm Pool,

comprising some of the world’s warmest open waters. (International Climate Change

Adaptation Initiative 2013, 3)

Map 4.1 Average positions of climate features in November to April Arrows show near surface winds, the blue shading shows the bands of rainfall convergence zones, the dashed oval shows the West Pacific Warm Pool and H represents typical positions of moving high pressure systems. (International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative 2013, 3)

29 Tropical cyclones, climate variability, climate monitoring, climate change, provision of routine

weather information including forecasts, and meeting the needs of industry such as aviation 30 SPCZ: Band of heavy rainfall spreading out from near the Solomon Islands to east of the Cook

Islands, which is strongest in the Southern Hemisphere wet season. (International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative 2013, 3)

31 ICZ: Covers the Pacific just north of the equator and is strongest in the Northern Hemisphere wet season. (International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative 2013, 3)

32 WPM: Caused by differences in temperature between land and ocean and moves north to mainland Asia during the Northern Hemisphere summer and south to Australia during the Southern Hemisphere summer. It brings a lot of rainfall. (International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative 2013, 3)

20

The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a three to five year lasting cycle

largely responsible for climate variation in the region. This phenomenon represents

two naturally opposite extremes in the sea surface temperatures across the central

and east-central equatorial Pacific. (Yamamoto and Esteban 2014, 41) The El Niño

event occurs every two to seven years and brings weaker Trade Winds and a

warming of the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. It usually lasts nine to

twelve months. The opposite extreme is La Niña, lasting one to three years, during

which the western part of the Pacific is warmer and the eastern area colder. This

change alters the strength and position of the ICZ and SPCZ, and the timing of the

monsoon. (International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative 2013, 4)

Moreover, the boundary of the Australian plate runs through the region. An

active subduction under the Pacific plate takes place, which turns part of the region

into a seismotectonic area prone to marine earthquakes and strong earthquakes

above 7 on the Richter scale. Because of the tectonic activity, there are many

volcanoes. (Zahn 1996, 218)

Size, geography, development and population of the states vary greatly. There

are comparatively large, high-rising island states such as PNG with over 5 Million

inhabitants, and small atoll countries such as Tuvalu, which rises only a few metres

above sea level and accommodates only ten thousand inhabitants.33 (Maas and

Carius 2012, 652) Often, the label on the map is much bigger than the respective

island. Papua New Guinea (PNG), the Solomon Islands and Fiji are the only states

without limited land resources. The total land mass of the Pacific accounts for an

area of 552,000km², which is only 2% of the total 30 Million km² of the region34. The

limited land mass is under pressure from its inhabitants, who have needs for housing,

waste disposal and food. They are extremely exposed and sensitive to climate

change related impacts, due to their small physical size, being surrounded by the

ocean and due to being located in a region prone to natural disasters and climate

extremes. (Kelman and West 2009, 2–4)

However, all island states own considerable marine resources. 20 Million km²

of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Pacific region belongs to ACP

33 High islands developed from volcanic activity and can support larger populations and have a more

fertile soil. Low islands consist of reefs or atolls and are generally small and infertile. Melanesia hosts many high islands, whereas most parts of Micronesia and Polynesia are low-lying. (USP 2011, 12)

34 The land mass of the Pacific Islands is comparable with the size of Spain.

21

countries.35 They are home to the richest fishing grounds in the world, a centre of

marine biological biodiversity. Additionally, an abundance of minerals can be found in

the region.36 The presence of key powers like the United States, China, Japan,

Australia and New Zealand highlight the geo-political and geo-economic importance

of the region. All have security, political and trade interests, as demand for natural

resources is increasing. (EC 2006, 15–16)

The Pacific region is home to the most extensive and diverse coral reefs in the

world, the largest tuna fishery and the largest remaining populations of many rare

and threatened species. Reefs and mangroves are important for the health of marine

resources, showing that the intersection of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems is

highly complex. (EU and PIF 2008a, 126, 127)

4.2 Social and Economic Characterization

Economic and human development varies significantly across the island states. One

feature they have in common is the reliance on subsistence farming and fishing as

main source of food, income and employment. The region hosts a vast diversity of

languages and cultures, which maintain traditional practices and customs focused on

the marine and coastal environment. (USP 2011, 11) Additionally, they are often

dependent on a limited resource base regarding arable land and fresh water because

of their small size. Many important goods, such as energy, food, materials and

manufactured goods, need to be imported. Tourism is a major economic sector for

many PICs. (Maas and Carius 2012, 652)

Pacific Island states are home to comparatively large populations relative to

their size, and are characteristic of high growth rates and densities in urban areas.

The region hosts an increasing population; from 1990 to 2011, it grew from 6 Million

to 10 Million people, an average growth rate of 3.3%.37 (SPREP 2012, 2) Additionally,

the population is very young in most cases, with over 50% of people being younger

than 15 years. (USP 2011, 12)

The Pacific ACP States face various development challenges, and can hardly

attain critical mass for production, trade and political influence. The tyranny of

distance is common to the region, because of the extreme distances between and

35 About four times the size of the EU 36 Gold, Copper, Nickel, Oil, Gas – much unexplored 37 PNG hosts the only population exceeding 1 Million. Tuvalu, Nauru, the Cook Islands and RMI host

populations of less than 50,000. (Weir and Orcherton 2013, 52) PNG has the lowest population density with 15 people per km², Tuvalu the highest with 383 people per km². (Maas and Carius 2012, 652)

22

within most island states. Low frequency and high cost of transportation constrain

economic development. On the other hand, electric communication is becoming

more available and affordable. (EC 2006, 16–20)

The latest evidence shows that the region is far from achieving the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs)38 in 2015. 3.2 Million people in the region live in poverty

and do not possess the income to satisfy basic human needs.39 About 480,000

children do not go to primary school40 and 0.46% of children die before the age of

five mostly from preventable causes. (EC 2011) Concerning financial resources, they

continue to rely on aid and cooperative programmes for their operations. These are

bilateral, multilateral or regional and come from individual countries, groups of

countries or regional and international organisations. (WMO 2014)

As they have been for the last 3500 years since the settlement of the islands,

Pacific people still live along coasts and subsist mainly on foods available onshore

and offshore.41 (Patrick D. Nunn 2013, 143) Fisheries are an important part of small

island economies and sustainable livelihood security.42 The reefs surrounding many

island states are food source as well as income source from tourism and the sale of

fish43 and also provide protection from storms and erosion. (SPREP 2012, 4)

Because of people's dependence on local resources, increasing populations and

uncoordinated concentrations, pressure on resources and natural systems is

inevitable. Therefore, sustainable management of these resources is essential. (EU

and PIF 2008a, 125)

The Pacific Islands economies are comparatively small as they rely on few

economic activities, and are thus more exposed to extreme events and climate

change. (Mimura et al. 2007, 701) Furthermore, economic activity is concentrated in

PNG and Fiji, which together represent 88.6% of land mass, 70% of GDP and 74.5%

of population. (EC 2012a, 4) Deep-sea mining, the quarrying of minerals and other

natural resources from the ocean floor, is an arising field for economic activity.

However, it entails environmental concerns. (Maas and Carius 2012, 653) Moreover,

38 MDGs: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, achieve universal primary education, promote

gender equality and empower women, reduce child mortality rates, improve maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, ensure environmental sustainability and develop a global partnership for development.

39 Majority in PNG and Timor-Leste 40 Especially in PNG, Vanuatu and Fiji 41 The move to coastal locations was encouraged by colonial and religious authorities and recently

through tourism. (Barnett and Campbell 2010, 21pp) 42 Tuna fisheries represent the region’s major hope for economic self-sufficiency. 43 Fish represents 73% of total exports of some countries. (FAO 2008, 8)

23

overseas aid and remittances by islanders working abroad contribute significantly to

the GDP of several PICs. (Weir and Orcherton 2013, 52)

The islands' energy consumption relies on import of liquid fossil fuels for

electricity and transport needs, causing relatively high energy prices and high outputs

of carbon dioxide.44 Additionally, due to the combination of small land masses, high

population growth and increasing competition for land resources, conflicts in waste

management practices occurred. (SPREP 2012, 2–3)

Socio-economic conditions are currently influenced by an urbanisation of the

major centres, mostly the respective capital cities of island states, because of

education and economic opportunities. Rural and outer-island residents are rapidly

moving there. Additionally, there is continued pressure from globalization, despite the

region's history of colonialism and experience of global capitalism. (Mimura et al.

2007, 693) “Most of their economies [...] are subject to external forces, such as

changing terms of trade, economic liberalisation, and migration flows.” (Mimura et al.

2007, 691)

All Pacific ACP states except Tonga are democracies. However, modern

institutions have not yet taken root everywhere and struggle with existing traditional

power structures.45 Thus, some countries are potentially unstable, some have human

rights problems46 and some problems of governance and corruption47. (EC 2006)

However, the islands are generally perceived relatively stable and peaceful and there

are few reported human rights abuses. Violent riots and conflicts mostly occur over

tenure and land rights48. (Maas and Carius 2012, 653–656)

The Pacific region is characteristic of an outstanding cultural diversity and

richness. However, traditions such as the strong culture of sharing expressed in land

ownership raises barriers to acquire land for development or using it as collateral.

This comprises a disincentive for saving for investment. (EC 2006, 19)

Traditional lifestyles, once adapted to their natural environment, were changed

through various factors. These were, most importantly, population growth, cash

economy, urbanisation, dependency on imported goods creating waste management

problems and tourism. Traditional knowledge, practices and cultures still in place are

44 90% of PICs’ energy demand is met by fossil fuels. (Weir and Orcherton 2013, 5) 45 Women remain under-represented in technical and professional education and are over-represented

in low-paid informal sectors. (EU and PIF 2008, 17) 46 Tonga has serious issues related to gender: violence against women, polygamy 47 Solomon Islands and PNG 48 Land is of great value for the identity and social cohesion of Pacific islanders. It is customarily

owned and passed down for generations.

24

strongly based on community support networks. (Mimura et al. 2007, 695)

4.3 Regional Cooperation

Pacific Island States often combine forces at regional level. However, Pacific

regionalism is not about economic integration through creating a single market, but

rather concerned with cooperation in certain functional areas. Regional organisations

are seen as an extension of national capacity and important in delivering services at

the national level. (EU and PIF 2008a, 15, 32) A Pacific Plan to drive regional

cooperation and integration was set up in 2005, but is said to have had limited impact

so far, as it is too broadly framed and has too many priorities. (Dornan 2014)

The premier body for regional policy-making of the relatively young self-

governing states in the Pacific is the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), established in 1971.

Its members are Australia, New Zealand and 14 Pacific ACP countries49. The PIF

promotes regional cooperation in economic and trade matters and implements

decisions. However, the geography of the region is the main determinant of the

cooperation being neither broad nor deep. (EC 2006, 20)

The oldest body of regional cooperation, the Secretariat of the Pacific

Community (SPC), was founded in 1947 under the Canberra Agreement in Australia.

It was then used by the six participating governments50 to administer the region after

the Second World War. Today, as most Pacific territories turned into sovereign states,

they are members themselves. Its objective is to support Pacific Island people to

achieve sustainable development in various fields. (SPC 2011a)

The Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) is the major actor

concerning climate change related issues. Its priority areas are strengthening

meteorological services; understanding climate change, climate variability and sea-

level rise; understanding vulnerability, adaptation and mitigation; and supporting

policy development on climate change. It is the interface between most PICs and the

international climate change community and represents the views of Pacific nations.

(Kelman and West 2009, 5) Additionally, it functions as the secretariat to the Pacific

Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR)51.

Another regional organisation is the University of the South Pacific (USP),

which provides internationally recognised higher education and training at all levels. It

provides education which is sensitive and relevant to the diverse island cultures and

49 Timor-Leste is only an observer. Additionally, Fiji is currently suspended. 50 Australia, France, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK, USA 51 Coordinating body for climate change related initiatives in the Pacific region.

25

environments. In addition, it promotes social and economic advancement and good

governance. (EU and PIF 2008a, 179)

Nine Pacific regional organisations52 are part of the Council of Regional

Organisations of the Pacific (CROP), whose purpose is to promote harmonisation

and collaboration between programmes, and to avoid duplication of efforts and

resources. It is thus a coordination mechanism between the heads of the regional

organisations in the Pacific and a high-level advisory body. (PIFS 2014)

As the region acknowledges that current adaptive actions are insufficient to

cope with the increasing vulnerability to climate change, the Pacific Islands

Framework of Action on Climate Change 2006 - 2015 (PIFACC) was established and

translated into an action plan. It identifies key vulnerabilities and provides guiding on

activities and planning, to ensure that communities enhance their capacity to adapt.

(EU and PIF 2008a, 46)

Furthermore, Pacific leaders established the Cairns Compact in 2009, which is

supposed to strengthen development coordination. In detail, for donors this implies a

reduction in aid fragmentation, easier aid administration and improved aid

effectiveness. This is to be achieved through an increased use of country systems,

multi-year funding commitments, pooled financial resources, delegation of aid

delivery and collaborative analytical work. (EC 2012a, 6)

Besides this regional cooperation, SIDS join forces worldwide at the Alliance of

Small Island States (AOSIS), which was created in 1990. Its members share the

concern about climate change and the environment regarding fragile island

ecosystems and perceive themselves as principal victims of climate change. The

alliance acts as negotiating body and lobby for SIDS53 and has been one of the key

players in UNFCCC negotiations in strengthening and seeking new treaties. Their

major demand is that industrialised countries should accept their responsibility for

causing climate change. However, their position is still very weak. (Yamamoto and

Esteban 2014, 111–115, 133)

52 Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, Pacific Islands Development Programme, Secretariat of the

Pacific Community, Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, South Pacific Tourism Organisation, University of the South Pacific, Pacific Power Association, Pacific Aviation Safety Office, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat

53 Includes all island states belonging to AOSIS and other island territories.

26

4.4 Key Impacts and Vulnerabilities Related to Climate Change

Climate change will act as a “threat-amplifier”, with impacts that include rising ocean levels, ocean warming and acidification, changing precipitation patterns, changing cloud cover patterns, altered ocean and atmosphere circulation patterns, and increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events. (SPREP 2012, 58)

Despite the fact that scientific literature on observed impacts is limited and the impact

detection of climate change is difficult due to the presence of anthropogenic drivers in

the constrained environments of small islands, their vulnerability is still widely

accepted. The ability of models to project tropical cyclone frequency and intensity,

wind speed and direction, precipitation, sea-level, ocean temperature and ocean

acidification is limited. In addition, there is a lack of long term baseline monitoring of

changes in climatic risk and projections mainly focus on the region as a whole. The

heterogeneity and complexity of single states need to be acknowledged and better

understood. Studies depict that change occurs but do not quantify the probability,

speed, scale or distribution of future climate risks. (Brown et al. 2013, 148pp; Nurse

et al. 2014, 14–22, 33)

4.4.1 Climatic Changes

From 1850 to 2005, the average global temperature increased by about 0.76°C. Until

2100, it is expected to further increase by 1.1 to 6.4°C relative to 1890-1990. In the

South Pacific, air temperature is expected to rise between 0.99 and 3.11°C until 2100

relative to 1961-1990. Precipitation change is predicted to range from -14 to +14%.

(USP 2011, 12, 13) The areas of greatest warming are mainly located near the

equator, west of longitude 180°E. Over the past 50 years, there has been a trend of

increased rainfall north-east of the SPCZ and decreased rainfall south-west of the

SPCZ. Another important change is the increase of sea surface temperatures by

about 0.7°C from 1950 to 2000 across the tropical Pacific due to the absorption of

increased carbon dioxide emissions. (International Climate Change Adaptation

Initiative 2013, 5, 6) Another factor linked to sea surface temperature rise is the

increased frequency of El Niño episodes since the 1970s without alternating La Niña

events. (FAO 2008, 5)

27

4.4.2 Sea-Level Rise

One of the greatest threats to the region, on which most literature can be found, is

the exposure and sensitivity to sea-level rise:

The 'disappearing islands' is a distinct idea that emerged out of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report to describe the vulnerability of small Island states in the Pacific to sea-level rise as a result of climate change. (Cameron 2011, 837)

Sea level is rising due to melting glaciers and land-ice, changing air-pressure,

thermal expansion of the ocean and gravitational shifts triggered through relocation of

ice/water mass. (SPREP 2012, 62)

According to the IPCC, the global mean sea level rose by 0.19m [0.17 – 0.21]m

between 1901-2010. Between 1993 and 2009, sea-level rise in some areas in the

Pacific averaged 10mm per year; much more than the worldwide average of

3.2±0.4mm per year. It will continue to rise and might be 1.2m higher than today by

2100. (Patrick D. Nunn 2013, 143–147)

Map 4.4.2 Regional distribution of sea-level rise measured by satellite altimeters from January 1993 to December 2009. (International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative 2013, 7)

However, the IPCC does not provide an upper bound to the maximum possible sea-

level rise, as it might exceed projections due to ice sheet break up in Greenland and

Antarctica. In case of a collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (unlikely), global

28

mean sea level will rise about five metres, which would entirely cover some SIDS.

Even under average IPCC scenarios from 2007, various SIDS are predicted to lose

land.54 (Kelman and West 2009, 3)

A rise in sea level has a major influence not only on low-lying atoll islands but

also higher islands, on which settlements, infrastructure and facilities are located in

the coastal zones. Sea-level rise will most likely cause increased inundation, storms,

beach erosion, land loss, seawater intrusion into freshwater lenses, soil salinisation55

and decline in water supply. This threatens infrastructure, settlements, fisheries,

agriculture and other livelihood facilities of island communities. Sea-level rise will very

likely disrupt life on any island, lead to a shift of coastal settlements inland or

elsewhere and may cause problems with environmental refugees in the future.56

(Mimura et al. 2007, 689–694; IPCC WGII 2014, 16; Nurse et al. 2014, 2)

For some states, sea-level rise endangers territorial integrity. Boundaries and

territories (also maritime) are likely to shift for any state with a coast, and a few are

threatened in sovereignty and statehood.57 This would also affect membership of

international organisations, diplomatic immunity and trade relations. The issue of

dispossessed states will have to be solved in the future. (Maas and Carius 2012,

656–662)

4.4.3 Ocean Warming and Acidification

Through climate change induced ocean warming and ENSO, the health of coral reefs

and other marine ecosystems, which are home to many species, is affected. (Mimura

et al. 2007, 689–699) Coral bleaching occurs when corals cannot adapt fast enough

to increasing sea temperatures, and is likely to eliminate more than 90% of the corals

on a reef.58 This destroys ecosystem and livelihoods, as food security is threatened

and the island is then exposed to ocean waves and storms59. (Kelman and West

2009, 4) In a few decades, the subsistence economy of island peoples will probably

break down subsequent to the collapse of near-shore marine food-production

systems due to coral bleaching. (Nunn 2013, 144)

54 Tuvalu, Tonga, Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Tokelau in the Pacific 55 High tides and storms will increase saltwater intrusion too. 56 Kiribati, RMI and Tuvalu might become uninhabitable by 2040, as they consist predominantly of

atolls. 57 Tuvalu is already negotiating relocation options with New Zealand and Australia. 58 Corals need a growing temperature between 17 and 34°C. 59 Coral reefs, as well as mangroves, function as natural coastal defences, protecting an island from

erosion and inundation. (Mimura et al. 2007, 696)

29

Figure 4.4.3 Coral bleaching in Tahiti. Sea-surface temperatures from 1860 to 2100, including ENSO effects compared to the upper thermal tolerance of corals (dashed line). Bleaching began around 1970, when the mean sea surface temperature had begun rising. (Patrick D. Nunn 2009, 213)

Another problem is ocean acidification: for medium- to high-emission scenarios,

ocean acidification poses substantial risks to marine ecosystems. (IPCC WGII 2014,

17) The ocean absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide and is affected by land-based

pollution, leading to seawater pH decreasing from 8.2 in pre-industrial times to 8.1

currently. Acidity increased by about 30%. This will negatively affect corals and other

pH sensitive organisms and could have serious impacts on coral islands.60

(Yamamoto and Esteban 2014, 22–45)

4.4.4 Natural Hazards

An increase in the frequency, duration and intensity of extreme weather events61 is

very likely. As an example, cyclones are driven by evaporation from areas of warm

sea water; so the warmer the ocean, the more likely it is to generate a cyclone62.

When a storm hits a small island, its total population and territory can be affected,

having a large negative impact on a state’s GDP. Food availability and people's

access to food are some of the first things to be altered. (Weir and Orcherton 2013,

55–61) Since 1950, natural disasters have affected over 3.8 Million people in 14

Pacific ACP States. In the 1990s, this region had the world's highest rate of disaster-

related mortality and costs of $2.8 Billion. (EC 2006, 19)

A major concern of many Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) is the

land loss associated with rising sea levels and natural hazards. For higher and larger

islands, impacts will hit mainly coastal areas, whereas for atolls, which are less than

60 Acidification decreases the rate at which corals form their calcium carbonate skeletons. 61 Heat waves, droughts, tropical cyclones, storm surges. Non-climate related natural disasters

islanders experience are earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions. 62 Storm system with large low-pressure centre surrounded by thunderstorms, causing strong winds

and heavy rain.

30

5m high, loss of land implies catastrophic changes. Thus, almost all economic and

social sectors of atolls will be disrupted. Recovery from extreme weather events is

rather difficult for many Pacific Islands, because of their remoteness, their ecological

fragility and their economic and social vulnerability. (SPREP 2012, 66, 91)

4.4.5 Health

The effects of climate change will exacerbate existing health risks especially in the

most vulnerable communities where the burden of disease is already high. Climate-

sensitive health problems are various vector- and water-borne diseases and

morbidity and mortality from extreme weather events, such as tropical cyclones,

storm surges, flooding and drought. (Barnett and Campbell 2010, 12pp) In the Pacific

Islands, the incidence of diseases such as malaria, which are typical for tropical

areas, has been increasing as a consequence of climate change. (Russel 2009,

19pp)

Many health effects of climate change will be indirect; connected to property

damage, loss of economic livelihood and threatened communities. (Nurse et al. 2014,

12)

4.4.6 Water Shortage

Fresh water quantity and quality are a critical issue in small island states and effect

all facets of life and livelihood. Water resources are highly vulnerable to climate

variability and change in rainfall patterns. Additionally, there is robust evidence and

high agreement that increasing GHG concentrations are responsible for increased

freshwater-related risks. (IPCC WGII 2014, 15) Most Pacific Islands contain limited

sources of freshwater because of lacking surface water or streams. They rely on

rainfall and groundwater, and currently suffer from water shortage because of

decreased rainfall. Additionally, communities have problems with groundwater

pollution, which affects human health and carries water-borne diseases. (Mimura et

al. 2007, 693–704)

A decline in rainfall in combination with sea-level rise reduces the volume of

available potable water as well as the size of the narrow freshwater lens.63 For

example, a 10% reduction in average rainfall on Tarawa Atoll, Kiribati, would cause a

20% reduction in the size of the freshwater lens. Sea-level rise and resulting soil

63 Inundation is especially dangerous for atoll islands, since a saltwater layer can be deposited over

the freshwater lens that may affect agriculture for months. (Nunn 2013, 147–149)

31

salinisation aggravate this threat. (Mimura et al. 2007, 689; SPREP 2012, 94–100)

Increased wave overtopping and wash-over as a result of sea-level rise impact

freshwater lenses dramatically. (Nurse et al. 2014, 9) An atoll island would become

uninhabitable because its fresh water supply will be polluted by salt water before it is

totally submerged. (Weir and Orcherton 2013, 60)

Rapidly growing demand, land use change, urbanization and tourism are

already straining the limited freshwater reserves. (White and Falkland 2010, 227pp)

Water stress for the region is becoming worse, also because most states have

neither water resource management legislation nor National Water Policies. (SPREP

2012, 100)

4.4.7 Food Insecurity

All aspects of food security are potentially affected by climate change, including food

access, utilization and price stability. (IPCC WGII 2014, 18) Rural food security

systems are predominantly dependent on natural resources, while urban food

security systems became dependent on imported food for their daily sustenance. In

the agricultural sector, the past 200 years of rising sea levels in the region caused

loss of productive land through inundation, shoreline erosion and groundwater

salinisation. Agricultural productivity also relies on seasonal rainfall, which is altered

by climate change. This negatively influences soil fertility, and causes thermal and

water stress. (FAO 2008, 4–7; Nunn 2013, 143–150) The most recent IPCC report

acknowledges that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields in the past

have been common. (IPCC WGII 2014, 7) Thus, food security is severely threatened.

In the Pacific, this problem is faced by the Cook Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu and

several atoll nations. Economically important crops like the Casuarina tree,

sugarcane and coconut palms have died as a result of salinisation. In the past 50

years, effects such as changed pathways of near-shore sediment movements,

changed wave regime from overtopping of reef surfaces and estuarine dynamics had

an increasing influence on coastal food supplies. (Nunn 2013, 143–150)

32

4.4.8 Summary: Influence on Livelihood Security

All of the above impacts and vulnerabilities entail a degradation of livelihood.

Saltwater intrusion and higher evaporation due to increased air temperatures reduce

the availability of fresh water. Agricultural production declines, coral bleaching might

cause a collapse of the fishing industry. Climate-sensitive diseases affect human

health and tourism64 as a major source of income diminishes. An increasing

population will demand more products from subsistence farming and fishing and will

increase other resource pressures. Moreover, productive landscapes are

geographically altered so that land mass shrinks, income opportunities are lost and

migratory processes from outer to main islands increase. Human insecurity is also

caused by disasters, economic marginalisation and community disintegration. (Maas

and Carius 2012, 655)

Pressures from human activity are often dominant relative to natural processes

caused by climatic change. The most serious impacts are drainage of coastal

wetlands, reclamation, discharge of sewage, fertilisers and contaminants into coastal

waters, harvests of fisheries, construction of seawalls, sand mining and hydrocarbon

production. The pressure on coastal zones is especially high, as settlements tend to

be located there. (Nicholls et al. 2007, 317–319) Vulnerability caused by climate

change and other natural influences is aggravated through rapid population growth,

exploitation of natural resources65, weak infrastructure, economic stagnation,

unemployment, political instability, lacking health care and education services and

international conflicts. (Mimura et al. 2007, 693)

Climate risks could multiply other societal problems that together could overwhelm the problem-solving capacity of societies, disrupt governments and trigger societal instability events. (Scheffran, Ide, and Schilling 2014, 737)

The Research Group Climate Change and Security (CLISEC) around Jürgen

Scheffran, which is part of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences in

Hamburg, conducts research on the linkages of climate change, migration and violent

conflict. There is no accordance yet on how and if climate change affects human

security, social stability and violent conflict.

64 Tourism relies on coastal and terrestrial ecosystems to provide visitor attractions and

accommodation space and is a highly weather and climate-sensitive sector on many islands. Thus, climate can impact environmental resources e.g. in terms of beach erosion and coral bleaching and causes a loss of destination attractiveness. (Nurse et al. 2014, 10, 11, 31)

65 Most commonly deep sea fisheries, coastal fisheries, timber and natural gas

33

However,

[l]ong-term historical studies tend to find a coincidence between climate variability and armed conflict, in line with some narratives about the evolution and collapse of civilizations. (Scheffran et al. 2012, 870)

In turn, conflict can affect sensitivity to climate change and adaptive capacity.

(Scheffran et al. 2012)

Through change in temperature and precipitation, and increase in natural

disasters, climate change can result in resource scarcity and contribute to the use of

violence.66 This can undermine state capacities and reduce state legitimation, which

might eventually lead to state failure and insecurity. (Scheffran, Ide, and Schilling

2014, 375) States may become increasingly fragile and be no longer capable of

providing public services. Then, climate change may result in an exacerbation of all

other challenges and decrease a state's capacity to peacefully solve domestic and

international conflicts. (Maas and Carius 2012, 656–660)

The interconnection of natural and social systems determines whether societal

stability can be eroded. Climate change can thus increase humanitarian crises and

aggravate existing conflicts without directly causing them. (Ide, Scheffran, and

Schilling 2012; Scheffran et al. 2012) Therefore, it is essential to sustainably and

peacefully mitigate and adapt to climate change. (Scheffran, Ide, and Schilling 2014,

381)

66 Among other reasons, violence can emerge from the need to acquire or defend resources, loss of

public order and infrastructure; and when people are forced to migrate.

34

5 The European Union

and the Pacific Small Island Developing States

5.1 Pacific-EU Relations

Pacific Islands are the first victims of climate change, which hampers their development and threatens peoples' lives. As the largest donor, the EU is taking upon its global responsibilities and will continue to express its solidarity with the poor and vulnerable citizens of these small islands. European Commissioner for Development, Andris Piebalgs (EC 2012b)

Both the EU and the Pacific Islands Forum agree on having a long-standing and

close partnership rooted in history with each other. (PIFS 2012) It originates from the

colonial past67 between the two regions, which are geographically far apart, but which

are “[...] more important to each other, than is generally realised or understood in

Europe.” (EC 2006, 12) The relationship weakened in the second half of the 20th

century, due to decolonisation, but is now becoming closer again as cooperation

started in 1975. (PIFS 2012) To the EU, this relationship is about interests and core

values like human rights, rule of law, environmental protection and democracy. But it

also states that both regions have much to offer to each other. (EC 2006, 23–24)

In the context of the EU-ACP partnership, the EU and the Pacific ACP states

and territories look back to more than 30 years of mainly economic and trade

cooperation. A revised Cotonou Agreement68, the Paris Declaration69 and the

European Consensus on Development70 provide a new basis for EU-Pacific relations.

(EC 2006, 2) The EU sees itself as an influential partner, being the second biggest

donor in the region. Total aid granted under Lome Conventions and the Cotonou

Agreement exceeds €1.8 Billion. (EC 2006, 25) Development and climate change

assistance to Pacific countries and OCTs that derives from the EU budget and the

10th European Development Fund was increased to about €785 Million for the period

2008 – 2013. (EC 2012a, 2–7)

As the EU wants to renew and reinforce its partnership, the first ever strategy

for the Pacific was developed in 2006. The Pacific strategy defines the EU's

67 Most recently United Kingdom, Portugal, France and before that Germany and Spain. All had

influence on the region, such as the British political institutions. Many states are part of the Commonwealth and retain the Queen as their Head of State.

68 Treaty between the EU and ACP States to reduce poverty and contribute to sustainable development and integration in the world economy. It was signed in 2000 and entered into force in 2003. Signatories were 78 ACP states and the then 15 EU member states.

69 2005 declaration of OECD on improving aid effectiveness and harmonising international donations in developing countries.

70 2005 policy statement of EU Member States, the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission about a common EU vision of development; on willingness to eradicate poverty and make the world more stable and equitable.

35

partnership with 15 Pacific ACP71 countries and eight Overseas Countries and

Territories (OCTs), of which four are European72. For better fund coordination, the EU

also cooperates with Australia and New Zealand, the two developed countries of the

PIF. The strategy consists of three components, which are more efficient aid delivery,

more focused development action and a broad political dialogue of matters of

common interest to strengthen the relationship. (EC 2006, 5)

The EU's major objectives are to adapt and streamline methods of EU official

development assistance and scaled up climate change financing, to catalyse

inclusive and sustainable growth and coherence between policies. Furthermore, it

wants to define a positive agenda of issues of common interest at the United Nations

and other fora, so as to join forces with like-minded partners and achieve the

Millennium Development Goals. Another important aspect is the promotion of EU

values such as human rights, democracy, sustainable development and good

governance. (EC 2012a, 2–3)

Trade with the Pacific is an important aspect to both parties, even when they

see it as rather small and erratic. The main export goods of the Pacific Islands are

palm oil, fish, coconut (copra), copper and sugar; whereas the EU exports machinery

and transport equipment. Additionally, the EU has signed interim Economic

Partnership Agreements with Fiji and PNG.73 Various European companies have

invested in the region, especially in Melanesian countries. An investment facility is to

be set up to encourage more private investments through blending public and private

money. (PIFS 2012) Of the total amount of exports of the Pacific Islands, 10% go to

Europe; of the total amount of imports, 5% come from Europe. However, 90% of the

total exports come from PNG and Fiji, and 41% of imports go to these two countries.

(EC 2006, 24)

Since climate change is linked with various policy fields such as trade, energy,

71 The ACP group was created in 1975 by the Georgetown Agreement, and consists now of 79

member states, of which 15 are Pacific. These used to be colonies or dependent territories of EU member states. Originally, the purpose creating this group was the coordination of cooperation between the ACP states and the EU. Since then, their relationship has changed profoundly as the historical bonds between the regions and the EU's interest diminished. The EU gave priority to issues closer to home, such as the single market and new member states relatively poorer than the ACP states. The agreement's main aims are to help ACP states to gradually integrate into the world economic order, while recognising the strong interdependence between security and development. Europe is establishing Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), which enhance European companies' access to ACP markets and strengthen ACP producers exposed to increased competition with EU goods. (Malik 2011, 123–128)

72 New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, Pitcairn 73 EPA about generous derogation to Rules of Origin for processed fish, which has positively

influenced investments in the tuna canning industry in PNG

36

security, conflict prevention and migration, it has become a global challenge which is

on the agenda of many international and bilateral meetings. (European Union 2013)

In this context, the EU recognises the vulnerability of the region to climate change

and its geostrategic importance not only for itself but also many strategic partners.

The impact of climate change is predicted to intensify, thus undermining development

achievements and sustainable growth. (EC 2012a, 2–5)

However, there are structural constraints faced by the island states and

territories, which is why a joint declaration on climate change was launched between

the Commission and the Forum Secretariat. Europe's strategy focusses on a limited

set of priorities which are of significant matter to the Pacific and for which the EU has

comparative advantages, such as sustainable management of natural resources,

regionalism and governance. In addition to financial assistance, the EU brings added

value through its collective experience and knowledge in confronting environmental

problems. At the regional level, the European Commission is currently providing

funds to the PIF through contribution agreements, which ensure a high degree of

ownership (EC 2006, 3–8, 11)

The establishment of diplomatic missions in Suva (Fiji), Port Moresby (PNG),

Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Dili (Timor-Leste) clarifies the EU's interest in long-

term commitment to the region. Seven Pacific Island countries have diplomatic

missions in Brussels. (PIFS 2012) Furthermore, regular political dialogues take place

at country and regional level, and were recently upgraded to ministerial level.

However, dialogue with individual states is limited, which is why discussion primarily

takes place with the main regional institution, the PIF, which has a mandate and

coherent regional policies set out in the Pacific Plan. This dialogue traditionally

follows immediately after the PIF leaders’ annual summit, and is therefore called

post-forum dialogue74. (EC 2006, 24)

During this dialogue, the Commission has the opportunity to meet PIF member

state leaders and key regional partners. In December 2010, a Memorandum of

Understanding (MoU) was agreed on at a Joint Pacific-EU initiative on climate

change. It was signed by the PIF Secretary General and Development Commissioner

Piebalgs in Strasbourg. It aims at facilitating the implementation of the Joint

Declaration from November 2008 and attracting international funding. (EC 2011)

74 Dialogue with 15 external partners, including the EU, China, France, the UK, Thailand, the USA,

Canada and others.

37

The first high-level political meeting between the EU and the PIF Troika75 took

place in 2007, when the Nuku'alofa Declaration was adopted in Tonga. It established

an enhanced EU-PIF dialogue to enable structured interaction between the two

regions to increase visibility of the EU in the Pacific and vice versa. (EU and PIF

2007)

Additionally, a plan for action was prepared, to improve coordination at the

United Nations, to establish Pacific friendly delivery methods and to promote a more

coherent EU policy mix in the Pacific and a comprehensive climate diplomacy

strategy. Policies range from trade cooperation, fisheries, and a research framework

programme to the observation of elections and the strengthening of governance

systems. (EC 2012a, 7–10)

5.2 Joint Pacific-EU Action against Climate Change

In several declarations and communiqués, the EU and the PIF express their

commitment to address challenges posed by climate change, in terms of mitigation

and adaptation. In September 2008, representatives met in Brussels at ministerial

level for the first time. Both note that the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol are the

main framework for addressing climate change. The PIF leaders adopted the Niue

Declaration on Climate Change in August 2008, committing themselves to protecting

their regional environment and calling for the support of the international community.

(EU and PIF 2008b)

Besides exchanging topics of mutual interest, such as regional security, trade

and development cooperation, they welcomed the GCCA as a mechanism for

enhanced political dialogue and exchange of experience between the EU and PIF.

(Council of the European Union 2008) They identified the need for technical and

financial support for the implementation of the Pacific Climate Change Roundtable

and other activities. The PIFACC identified the following principles: improving

understanding of climate change, education, training and awareness, contributing to

global greenhouse gas reduction, implementing adaptive measures, governance,

decision-making, partnerships and cooperation. (EU and PIF 2008b) Additionally, aid

effectiveness is an important issue for PIF, which has adapted the Paris Principles to

the Pacific context. These imply that climate financing should be delivered through a

nationally suited method. (Council of the European Union 2008)

75 PIF Troika: Prime Minister of Tonga and Ministers from PNG, supported by Secretariat General of

PIF

38

The Joint Pacific-EU Initiative on Climate Change was launched in Strasbourg

in 2010 by the PIF Secretariat and the Commission; and in March 2011, a Joint

Action Plan on Climate Change was established in Vanuatu. EU Commissioner for

Development, Andris Piebalgs, visited the island to launch and announce new

programmes to fight against poverty and the consequences of climate change of up

to €89.4 Million. He promised that €30 Million will be spent on strengthening Pacific

integration through trade. Concerning climate change, adaptation projects would be

implemented amounting to a total €8 Million. Actions include mangrove replanting,

reforestation of watershed areas, rainwater harvesting and water conservation, as

well as soil retention measures, introduction of drought/ salt resistant cultivars and

others. A further €20 Million would be spent on the reduction of natural disasters, €12

Million for reinforcement of integrated management of coastal, terrestrial and marine

environments in OCTs and €4.3 Million for humanitarian assistance for Disaster

Preparedness and Risk Reduction. (EU 2011a)

The second ministerial level meeting took place in New Zealand in 2012,

where the PIF expressed appreciation for the significant assistance the Pacific

received from the EU over the past 37 years. The progress since the implementation

of the EU-PIF Declaration on Climate Change in 2008 was reviewed. A joint Pacific-

EU Plan of Action on Climate Change 2012 – 2014 to assist the Joint Initiative was

established. This plan consists of three core priorities; namely to build a stronger

Pacific-EU political dialogue on climate change, more effective cooperation and

increased international support for the Pacific on climate change. Furthermore, it also

includes sustainable economic development to support reliable transport,

infrastructure and access to energy. An initial €92 Million from the 10th EDF and EU

budget were intended to focus on Disaster Risk Reduction and Management,

Sustainable Energy and Energy Efficiency and Community Resilience to Climate

Change. (EU and PIF 2012)

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security and

Vice-President of the European Commission, Catherine Ashton, said:

This Joint Communication highlights the added value we bring as a political and development partner to the Pacific region. We want to go beyond our traditional donor-recipient relationship, and develop a more comprehensive partnership which can successfully address issues of global importance such as climate change. (EC 2012b)

Since 2008, Commission-managed support on climate change in the Pacific

increased politically and financially. Pacific representatives acknowledged that the

39

GCCA has effectively provided a platform for political dialogue and exchange for

financial and technical cooperation since 2009. The communiqué states, that by

2012, all Pacific ACP states will have benefited from additional EU funding for climate

change, especially through the GCCA. (EU and PIF 2012)

Because of the already mentioned structural constraints, delivery methods

need to be adapted and thus limit the use of project approaches which tend to

overstretch small administrations. As outlined in the Annex to the Joint Communiqué

2012, delivery methods for EU assistance in the Pacific were improved. To achieve

sustainable results, the EU uses sector programmes and budget support, which align

with national development plans and sector strategies. Policy dialogue and regular

performance assessment contribute to an improved service delivery and institutional,

policy and regulatory outcomes. (EU and PIF 2012)

In September 2013, Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard,

represented the EU in the annual PIF meeting in Majuro, Marshall Islands, under the

title “Marshalling the Pacific Response to the Climate Challenge.” Furthermore, she

met bilaterally with several Pacific Island leaders, focussing on the effects of climate

change in the region as well as on progress in finalising a new international climate

agreement in 2015 and stepping up global action before 2020. Funding is estimated

at €750 Million for 2008 – 2013. (Targeted News Service 2013)

A new framework to advance cooperation and coordination in climate change

was provided by the renewed EU-Pacific Development Partnership set out in 2012 by

the Commission and Catherine Ashton. Besides the initial resources for development

and climate change for ACP states, the EU has made available a financial package of

€110 Million. Through the GCCA, small island developing states in the Pacific are

benefiting from financial and technical support either directly through national

programmes or indirectly through regional programmes. (Targeted News Service

2013)

The EU supports several national as well as multi-country programmes. In

addition to adaptive actions, other ongoing and planned interventions that belong to

climate change adaptation strategies focus on renewable energy, energy efficiency

and disaster risk reduction. Energy security and sustainability shall reduce the

dependence on fossil fuels and improve quality of life. (EC 2011) The concern of this

paper will be the support of climate change adaptation by the Global Climate Change

Alliance.

40

5.3 The Global Climate Change Alliance

The Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) was launched in 2007 by the European Commission to strengthen dialogue and cooperation on climate change between the European Union (EU) and developing countries most vulnerable to climate change, in particular Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which are hardest hit by the adverse effects of climate change. (GCCA 2012a)

The GCCA is an initiative focussing on actions integrating climate change in

developing countries' policies and focussing on adaptation activities. These are

concentrated on the water and agricultural sectors, on disaster risk reduction and

also on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, as well as

enhanced participation of LDCs in the carbon market. The GCCA Support Facility76

assists capacity-building in target countries since 2009. It improves knowledge on

projected impacts of climate change, effectively integrates climate change

vulnerability into development plans and budgets, identifies and prepares GCCA

activities in special sectors. (European Communities 2009, 8)

The GCCA's objective is to build an alliance on climate change between the

EU and developing countries that are most affected and have the least capacity to

cope with climate change. The idea is to add adaptation-related funding to existing

budget support programmes. (Carbon Market Solutions 2010, 20, 21) The GCCA

makes its contributions through a double layer of action, consisting of dialogue and

exchange of experience and the cooperation through country or regional

interventions. Thereby, it sees itself as promoting the transfer of knowledge from the

field and informs the international climate change debate and decision-making at the

highest level. (EU 2012, 4) It is working together with various regional organisations

such as the PIF, SPC, SPREP and USP.

In the Pacific region, the focus of the initiative is applied research for better

understanding of vulnerability of the communities and for developing tools to assess

vulnerability and develop adaptation plans. At the regional level, activities include for

instance the setting up of a regional mechanism for access to international climate

funding. At the national level, national climate change adaptation roadmaps are

produced. Locally, field projects are implemented from which practical experience is

drawn. Both top-down and bottom-up approaches are applied and show that this

method has the best chance of enhancing the adaptive capacity of Pacific islanders.

Thus, low-input community adaptation projects will be implemented, which are

76 Compiles and analyses existing climate change data.

41

reproducible and will be accompanied by a best practice promotion. (EU 2012, 25,

52, 60)

Major investment will go to science and technology, as well as human

resources and institution building to reinforce capacity in various areas essential for

Pacific Islands' sustainable development, such as fisheries, biodiversity and disaster

preparedness. The EU is of the opinion that assistance should be more concentrated

with a stronger focus at regional level to be more efficient. (EC 2006, 10)

Stakeholders interested in support have to contact the GCCA directly to

discuss potential projects. Preconditions for countries to be eligible for funding are

that they have already received budget support through the European Commission

(EC) or other donors, that there is an EC Delegation with capacity to prepare and

follow up the implementation of the GCCA programme and that the country is

involved in UNFCCC negotiations. (Climate Finance Options 2013)

There are two regional projects and five national, which will be outlined in

detail on the following pages.

5.4 Funding

From 2008-2012, the GCCA has in total committed €243 Million worldwide, which

originate from the budget of the Commission, some Member States and the 10th

European Development Fund (EDF). This includes Fast Start Finance (FSF) for

immediate action on climate change in developing states pledged at the UNFCCC

15th Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen 2009. So far, FSF from the

Commission, Ireland, Estonia and Cyprus have provided approximately €171 Million

to interventions of the GCCA around the world. In 2013, additional €47 Million were

provided.

The origin of the funds varies, as outlined in a diagram on the GCCA

homepage. 91% originate from the EC budget, 75% from EC budget FSF, 40% stem

from the EDF, 33% from EU Member States FSF and 5% from EU Member States.

GCCA support finances mainstreaming of climate change into national development

planning in over half of the ACP states. Supported adaptation programmes cover a

range of climate-sensitive sectors, such as land water management, agriculture,

coastal zone protection, disaster risk management, forest management and clean

energy. Thus, programmes in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific aim at

strengthening the capacity of the most vulnerable developing countries to tackle

climate change. In 2008-2012, Africa received €124 Million, the major share of

42

funding. The Pacific region received €38 Million of total funds for regional and

national projects. (GCCA 2012a)

Besides the GCCA, the EU is investing in two main priorities under the 10th

EDF 2008-2013, namely regional economic integration (€45 Million) and sustainable

management of natural resources and the environment (€40 Million). Another €10

Million will cover participation of non-state actors and technical cooperation and

support for the PIF Secretariat, who is the Regional Authorising Officer of the EDF.

Other funding comes from EU Member States' bilateral funds, the EDF inter-regional

funds, the European Investment Bank and others. (European Union 2013)

Assistance for the Pacific has increased by about 60% between the 9th and the

10th EDF; overall, the region receives €735 Million for the period 2008-2013. Of this

amount, approximately €665 Million go to Pacific ACP states and €70 Million to

Pacific OCTs. Additionally, €27.7 Million were mobilised under the Vulnerability Flex

mechanism 2009 and 2010, to help the most vulnerable Pacific countries to cope

with the Financial Crisis. The Pacific will also receive a share of 'all-ACP'

programmes such as the Disaster Facility (total €150 Million), the Migration Facility

(total €25 Million) and the Science and Technology research programme (total €20

Million). (EC 2011) On the following pages, the projects of the GCCA in the Pacific

region will be introduced.

5.5 Regional: Pacific Small Island States Project

The Pacific Small Island States Programme supports the nine governments of the

Cook Islands, FSM, Kiribati, RMI, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Tonga and Tuvalu. From

07/2011 until 12/2014, €11.4 Million will be spent mainly in agriculture, coastal zone

management, health, infrastructure, overall development, poverty reduction, water

and sanitation. Implementing partners in the region are the Secretariat of the Pacific

Community (SPC) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment

Programme (SPREP). (GCCA 2012c)

In this programme, the above named countries will receive support in tackling

the adverse effects of climate change. Long-term strategies and approaches to

adaptation planning are at its core and will contribute to a more coherent,

coordinated, effective and mainstreamed aid delivery at national and regional level.

The project is administered through the Strategic Engagement, Policy and Planning

Facility of the SPC and contributes to its Climate Change Engagement Strategy.

(SPC 2011b)

43

Assistance in design and implementation of on-the-ground climate change

adaptation projects are at the core of this programme. On the long run, it aims at

supporting the countries to advance from ad hoc project-by-project adaptation to a

programmatic approach that should ease access of countries to new sources of

funding, such as national and sector budget support. National support available over

the course of the project amounts to €500,000 for adaptation projects in each country

and to €54,000 for national coordination in each country. Additional funding for

technical assistance and training can also be claimed. (Cambers and Hemstock

2014)

It consists of four components: To begin with, climate change is to be

mainstreamed in national and/or sector response strategies. Furthermore, well-

articulated sectoral adaptation strategies addressing budget support criteria will be

advanced and national climate change adaptation projects will be implemented.

Additionally, streamlined technical assistance supporting national adaptation

responses will be delivered collaboratively by regional organisations. (SPC 2011b)

At the national level, countries are better equipped to mainstream climate

change in policies, planning processes and country budgets. Moreover, concrete

adaptive actions are developed and implemented. Adaptation roadmaps are

produced to integrate climate change resilient strategies in development policies and

budgets of governments and to implement initial activities foreseen in the roadmaps

and other strategic adaptation priorities. Existing plans and ongoing actions are

reviewed and coordination workshops with important stakeholders organised. So far,

climate change profiles which provide background information on expected climate

impacts, responses, economic and financial circumstances and development

strategies haven been produced for the nine states. (GCCA 2012c)

In the following, examples of national projects under the PSIS programme

framework are provided. On the Cook Islands, environmental monitoring takes place

to enhance community lives and build resilience in the low lying atolls of the state.

This will continue for a duration of two years and costs €500,000. It is aimed at

improving the environment for pearl farming and artisanal and small scale

commercial fisheries in the northern atolls. (SPC 2011b)

In Kiribati, a workshop on health issues took place in January 2013. Health is

noted in Kiribati's NAPA (National Adaptation Programme of Action), as the country

faces problems with diseases caused by water quality, food safety and vector control

works. Mosquitoes are breeding in abandoned vehicles and waste, abetting the

44

spread of Dengue fever. A project worth about €500,000 is planned to improve the

implementation of Environmental Health Surveillance and response to climate

sensitive health risks, which will run two years and three months until December

2014. (SPC 2011b)

A water project is conducted in Nauru, where people are dependent on

rainwater but lack sufficient storage mechanisms. For two years and €500,000,

rainwater tanks are installed among other measures to increase the rainwater

harvesting capacity. In advancing the supply of quality potable water to households,

this project seeks to build people's resilience. (SPC 2011b)

A similar project on augmenting rainwater harvesting is executed in Niue. In

three villages, 5,000 litre water tanks are provided to each of 214 households,

accounting for 44% of the population. It is building on an existing project by GEF and

AusAid, thus ensuring coverage of the whole island. Presently, water stems mainly

from an underground aquifer. With the tanks, supply of potable water will be reliant

also during extreme events. The project takes two years, €500,000 are invested.

(SPC 2011b)

In the Republic of Palau, it is also the water sector which is especially

vulnerable to climate change on the outlying islands. These are affected by sea-level

rise, shifting rainfall patterns and warmer temperatures, which impact the islands'

water lenses. Thus, an assessment of water resources and climate related risks

takes place, as well as reduction of leakages, installation of appropriate water

harvesting and a campaign for public awareness and education. With a two year and

€500,000 project until December 2014, household-level resilience is to be increased.

(SPC 2011b)

A project in eastern Tongatapu, the biggest island of Tonga, focusses on six

low-lying communities which are vulnerable to coastal erosion and sea-level rise.

€500,000 are spent over two and a half years to implement and evaluate different

coastal protection measures such as the construction of permeable groynes77 and

small detached breakwaters, sand replenishment and planting of site-appropriate

plant species, e.g. mangroves. It is implemented by the Government of Tonga and

managed by the Ministry of Lands, Environment, Climate Change and Natural

Resources and the Ministry of Infrastructure. It follows a participatory approach of

government ministries and project staff in engaging the local communities in the

77 A wall or jetty built out from a riverbank or seashore to control erosion.

45

design of the project and focusses on building the resilience of 3,367 people. (SPC

2013) This is expected to provide lessons and best practices for engineered coastal

protection systems for other vulnerable coastal areas in Tonga and the Pacific. The

GCCA has more projects and workshops across the region to help the countries

adapt to climate change impacts. (SPC 2011b)

At the regional level, capacity to support national adaptation needs and

establish regional coordinating mechanisms is strengthened. Workshops,

conferences and seminars are and will take place and a regional mechanism to

support access to international funding will be set up. (GCCA 2012c)

The First Steering Committee Meeting took place in Suva, Fiji, on May 28th-

29th 2012. Participants from all nine states, regional organisations and the EU were

present to learn about the project's scope and to plan activities. A second meeting

took place on December 3rd 2012, to discuss progress made with the project. Most

countries then had determined their focus of adaptation and some were already

working on detailed project design. Additionally, 14 country missions had then taken

place to advance project planning. National coordinators are by now recruited and

several training activities on climate change finance and other climate related issues

were conducted.

Representatives presented progress on the project in their respective

countries. Problems identifying adaptation needs were discussed and the project was

rated on a scale from A to D, with A being the highest rating and D implying serious

issues. Its ‘relevance’78 was marked with B, as well as ‘impact prospects’ and

‘potential sustainability’79. However, ‘efficiency’80 was ranked a C, because of project

delays in the first six months due to only 44% of resources being available.

“Effectiveness”81 also received a C, because of good quality outputs and

achievement of purpose but too tight time schedule. Moreover, a risk management

strategy is missing, but under construction. (SPC 2011b)

78 How well the project was designed to support existing international, regional and national

conventions and environmental agreements. 79 How well they considered future plans for activities that were implemented and in general the overall

future plans for the project. 80 How well the project team spent project funds to implement project activities on time. 81 Impacts of project activities on demonstration sites/communities; looked at positive and negative

impacts that resulted from activities implemented and how well they addressed the challenges that arose out of it.

46

5.6 Regional: Support the EU-GCCA through capacity building, community

engagement and applied research

This programme is the GCCA project on which the most information is available. It is

the Pacific part of the worldwide Intra-ACP programme of the GCCA, which focusses

on mitigation and adaptation in LDCs and SIDS; under the guiding theme

‘sustainable development’. In the Pacific, the Intra-ACP Programme supports the

regionally developed PIFACC, a common strategy for action on climate change. The

programme’s major objective is “[t]o improve understanding of climate change

regionally through formal and informal training, practical on-the ground adaptation

activities at community level, and applied research.” (GCCA 2012b)

The implementing partner in the Pacific is the University of the South Pacific's

Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development (PACE-SD), which

recruited an In-Country Coordinator for each state to coordinate the implementation

of projects. The project covers 15 Pacific ACP states, of which eleven have a USP

campus, for a duration of four years investing €8 Million since January 2011. The

programme runs until December 2014. The region's capacity to adapt to the impacts

of climate change is to be developed and strengthened by training national and

regional experts on issues such as climate change, adaptation and development and

implementation of sustainable adaptation strategies for communities. The USP

expects an evolving network of national and regional experts on climate change who

can support communities, governments, NGOs and regional organisations

addressing climate change threats through sustainable and long-term approaches.

(USP 2004a)

In a press release on the High Level Conference in Vanuatu in March 2011,

Commissioner for Development Andris Piebalgs, endorsed the project at USP.

Catherine Ashton claims it to be especially valuable because of its multifaceted

approach to the challenge of climate change adaptation. As it is implemented in

communities, it will directly benefit the people who are most vulnerable. Professor

Rajesh Chandra, Vice-Chancellor and President of USP, is grateful for the

commitment of the EU. (EU Delegation Fiji 2011)

Planned activities are divided into three components: Capacity Building,

Community Engagement and Applied Research. They are supposed to work

separately but link up, for instance in terms of research results influencing community

adaptation strategies. And in turn, community work can also provide crucial lessons

to be integrated in university courses. University students themselves will add

47

practice to theory by connecting their studies with applied research and community

engagement. These counties include: Cook Islands, Fiji, Federated States of

Micronesia (FSM), Nauru, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Palau, Republic of the Marshall

Islands (RMI), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

(USP 2004a)

5.6.1 Component 1 – Capacity Building

The first component implies formal and informal training, aimed at bringing forth local

experts, who can support and guide governments, NGOs and regional development

partners that often lack deep knowledge on climate change. Additionally, they can

train people at community level in adaptation. (USP 2004b)

The formal part of training includes post-graduate, master and PhD level

courses of study at the University of the South Pacific, primarily intended for local

people. On the one hand, they are educated in adaptation strategies, Disaster Risk

Management and Environmental Impact Assessment, on the other, they are also

taught the scientific basics such as terrestrial and aquatic ecology and climate

science. The post-graduate course shall provide background knowledge to graduates

working for governments and NGOs who need to be familiar with climate-related

issues. The practical part includes community projects and targeted research. (USP

2004b)

The informal training consists of capacity building workshops and training of

country coordinators to assume their role as future trainer on climate change.

Proximate, these country coordinators can then train relevant actors in their

respective countries who will organise workshops for local communities. (GCCA

2012b) Furthermore, knowledge and skills focussed on climate change issues and

practical management skills are to be improved among practitioners in the region.

Topics and skills will be determined according to needs and demands of practitioners.

(USP 2004b) Dialogue and coordination activities are supposed to promote effective

networking with national and regional partners on climate change issues. (GCCA

2012b)

48

5.6.2 Component 2 – Community Engagement in Adapting to Climate Change

The purpose of this component is an improvement of the resilience of local

communities who gather skills to develop, implement and sustain long term

adaptation strategies. It will support about 40 communities in the 15 Pacific ACP

countries to adapt to climate change. At the centre of these projects will be the

vulnerable sectors identified by National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs)

and National Communications to the UNFCCC. It is important that projects are

inclusive and ensure the future uptake by entire communities. (USP 2004b)

Furthermore, awareness raising includes school children to begin climate

change education at an early age. A quiz on climate change took place on television,

and a board game was developed. (Samani 2012b, 57) After the success of the first

climate zone quiz, Vanuatu organised its own quiz which took place in December

2013 between schools. (Samani 2013b, 6) This is accompanied by a regional review

of good practices and by securing ownership on the side of practitioners of the

community. Participatory community engagement through the Locally Managed

Climate Change Adaptation Network (LMCCA) will help to distribute lessons learnt at

demonstration sites and good practices to other communities in the region. (USP

2004b)

The selection of project sites takes place in collaboration. Relevant

stakeholders in the respective state are contacted to provide a list of three to six

potential sites. These sites undergo a rapid vulnerability and adaptation assessment

conducted by an ICC, who assesses the level of vulnerability82, adaptive capacity83,

need84 and feasibility85 of the project to adequately address the identified vulnerability

within the funding capacity of the project. The assessment should take one day

depending on weather conditions and the availability of community representatives

for key informant interviews. Visual observations and interviews take place to assess

physiological characteristics86 of the site and surrounding areas, socio-economic

conditions87, water resources and supply88, health and sanitation89, food resources

82 Based on livelihood sectors water resources, health and sanitation, food resources and food

security, energy resources and energy security. Additionally, vulnerability to disasters, sea-level rise, cyclones etc is measured by type of housing, elevation, reef system and other indicators.

83 Based on approximate aggregate income of the community per year divided according to the number of households to calculate the income per household per year and then further calculated to a daily basis.

84 Level of need related to level of community commitment to past projects and level of community interest.

85 Determined by population size and availability of funding. 86 Geomorphology, drainage patterns, vegetation cover, land use types and patterns. 87 Population, distribution, community management structure, sources of income, farming system,

49

and security90, energy sources91, disaster risk management92 and community

needs93. After the assessment, three sites will be selected for the GCCA projects.

(PACE-SD 2012, 3–16)

5.6.3 Component 3 – Applied Research

This component intends to integrate scientific understanding, climate projections and

local knowledge into the process of creating appropriate adaptation strategies to

enhance resilience and diminish vulnerability. The development of tools to assess

vulnerability, monitor and project climate change, and the development of adaptation

plans are crucial. Climate models will be analysed, proved and improved if

necessary; to adjust them to national and local scales. Furthermore, a series of

studies on the projected impacts of climate variability and extremes on economic

sectors and biophysical regions will be conducted. Outcomes will inform the

development of appropriate adaptation strategies and practices, which also involve

traditional knowledge. (GCCA 2012b)

Additionally, the USP established an online Climate Change Knowledge

Centre, which accumulates data and reports from throughout the region. It holds

relevant technical data on Pacific-based climate science, documents on the impacts

of climate change and variability, documents on the inclusion of traditional

knowledge, a catalogue of good practices and lessons learnt in community

adaptation projects. Research assistants continuously work on the collection and

collation of information for the best practices report, while twelve fact sheets on

climate change have been published on the USP homepage. A community resources

section provides methodology for both rapid and full assessments and a toolkit for

climate change awareness. Soon, a catalogue of all completed assessments will be

available for download. (GCCA 2012b; Samani 2013b, 4)

fisheries, income, development plans, resources management, investment plans

88 Prominent source of water, availability throughout the year, quality, distribution system, types and capacity of storage for community and households

89 Health services facilities, nearest health centre, water borne diseases, vector borne diseases, other diseases, health report

90 Total land availability, types of food sources, productivity levels, area of fishing ground owned, main fish types, main non-fish types as food sources, productivity level of resources

91 Key energy sources for cooking, lighting 92 Types of infrastructures, disaster management plan existence, effectiveness, evacuation centre 93 Number of projects currently implemented by community itself and through external assistance,

willingness to participate in EU GCCA project if their community is selected, level of in-kind contribution willing to provide for project, level of cash contribution willing to provide

50

5.6.4 Project Progress

Biannual reports on the progress of the project are published on the USP homepage.

Challenges outlined in the Mid Report from June 2012 included the recruitment of In-

Country Coordinators who are difficult to find because skilled potential personnel tend

to take more lucrative positions. They are essential as they engage with people at

community level, conduct climate change awareness activities, work with

stakeholders and identify sites most vulnerable. Concerning Component 2, some

activities were not on schedule. In Component 3, problems were faced in building the

technical capacity to work with large data sets, in accessing meteorological GIS data

for individual countries and in translating weather and climate projections into

products useful for the communities. The USP identifies the hardest part to be the

bringing about of a behaviour change for adaptation. It knows that sustained

communication through traditional and non-traditional methods will be necessary.

Participatory solution finding and engagement with the community are key for a

successful adaptation process. (Samani 2012a, 12–51)

In the December 2012 report, the implementing actors admitted that the

programme started a full year behind schedule but nevertheless managed to

complete two years of work in one. Problems finding ICCs persisted in Palau and the

Federated States of Micronesia. In the Marshall Islands, the ICC was removed on

request of the government. Memorandums of Understanding were agreed on with

organisations who filled this position with their staff. Mr Thierry Catteau, working for

the EU Delegation in Fiji, undertook a one week long monitoring and assessment of

the GCCA projects, which were graded on a scale from A to D. The categories

outlined in the PSIS project also account for this one. On ‘relevance and quality of

design’ the project received a B, ‘efficiency of implementation to date’ a B,

‘effectiveness to date’ a C, ‘impact prospects’ a C and ‘potential sustainability’ a B.

(Samani 2012b, 2–11) Significant progress in 2012 has been made in training

personnel in 15 Pacific ACP states who can assist their governments and

communities in climate change adaptation initiatives. (Samani 2012b, 30–50)

Until June 2013, 62 students graduated with a postgraduate diploma, 30 full

vulnerability and adaptation assessments were completed, 78 Climate Ambassadors

were trained in three sub-regional training workshops and the website and

Knowledge Centre have been launched. Four countries had developed their

Community Adaptation Plans and were in the process of implementation. The

monitoring and assessment of the programme showed the same outcome as in the

51

Annual Report 2012. (Samani 2013a, 2–29)

The latest progress report from December 2013 provides an extensive

summary of project activities and achievements in 2013. Regarding the project

management, the total staff required to implement the project was in place during this

reporting period. However, there has been a limited number of academic staff

compared to the increasing number of students enrolled. A MoU for internships in

climate change related agencies in the region was endeavoured, so that students can

gather experience and agencies can learn from the knowledge acquired during their

studies. Some alumni are currently working as lead negotiators for AOSIS, the Group

77, the GIZ, as lecturers and research assistants.94 (Samani 2013b, 5–13)

A monitoring and evaluation officer is working with the 15 ICCs to develop

indicators and assess baselines for their respective adaptation plans. Moreover, an

independent evaluator conducted a Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) in October

2013, assessing the project on the same five major criteria95 also applied for earlier

evaluations. The result showed an improvement from the first ROM in October 2012.

(Samani 2013b, 5–9)

Table 5.6.4 Evaluation 2012 and 2013 (Samani 2013b, 9)

Criteria Grade result 1st ROM 2012 Grade result 2nd ROM 2013

Relevance and quality of design

B B

Efficiency of implementation to date

B B

Effectiveness to date C A

Impact prospects C B

Potential sustainability B B

Concerning component one, in total 65 students graduated with a postgraduate

diploma, 27 scholarships were awarded, and a Disaster Risk Management course

was developed, which registered 33 students for this period. In total, 78 Climate

Ambassadors were trained in sub-regional trainings on disaster risk management

(DRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA) in all three ethnic regions and another

516 Climate Ambassadors were trained in national trainings. All of the 15 countries

have their own In-Country Coordinators now, which were trained on DRM and climate

94 To achieve the objective to strengthen and develop Pacific countries' capacity to adapt, it is crucial

that students trained under the project remain in the region to support governments, NGOs and regional organisations in their work on climate change.

95 Objectively Verifiable Indicators of the project objective, purpose and result

52

change adaptation, and seven students attended the COP19 negotiations meeting in

Warsaw. (Samani 2013b, 3–39)

Concerning component two, important steps have been taken. Firstly, the

seven Cs96 of climate resilience were incorporated into all community based trainings

to ensure sustainable changes to take place. Thirdly, 101 rapid assessments were

conducted and a total of 43 communities were selected for participation in the

development and implementation of climate change adaptation plans in 14

countries.97 37 of these have completed full vulnerability and adaptation assessments

and are planning adaptation schedules. Nine of these countries are in the process of

implementing their community adaptation plans. Some states have begun to train the

pilot sites on technical skills necessary to implement the adaptive measures. Funding

partners were identified to co-finance projects in four communities in two countries.98

Furthermore, National Project Advisory Committees (NPACs) were established in all

15 project countries and community awareness workshops were successfully

conducted. FSM prepared climate change awareness flip charts which were printed

and distributed to all ICCs by the Micronesia Conservation Trust to support them in

conducting awareness programmes. (Samani 2013b, 3–11)

An important step taken in component three was the Climate Services Forum

held in USP in January 2013 which 200 people attended to receive training in tropical

cyclones, coral reef health, climate data sets and sea-level rise. Conferences and

workshops with participation of leading climate change specialists and authors of

scientific reports from around the world took place. In addition, 81 students were

trained in the use of specific tools for data modelling and analysis, such as DSSAT

and R Stats. (Samani 2013b, 4–12)

5.6.5 Country Priorities and Activities in December 2013

On the Cook Islands, the two pilot sites Te Tautua Village and Omoka Village on

Penrhyn Island have finalised adaptation plans, but did not start implementation by

the end of 2013. Te Tautua focusses on water security, which implies the provision of

water tanks to inhabited households. Omoka Village prioritises coastal protection,

which entails the safeguarding of small boat vessel landings and the provision of

96 Collaboration, community, culture, conduct, conservation, commitment, confidence 97 Only RMI still had to select its demonstration sites in December 2013. 98 The actions identified in adaptation plans contain a variety of appropriate actions that cannot be

funded by this project. However, they provide a list of feasible activities which can be presented to other funders to reduce the duplication of assessment and planning activities.

53

materials to reinforce the foreshore. The distance of the project sites from Rarotonga

turns material delivery into a time consuming issue. A monitoring visit to evaluate the

implementation will take place in July and August 2014. (Samani 2013b, 17, 18)

Three pilot sites were selected in Fiji, where implementation partly started. In

Korolevu, Navudi and Rokosalase communities, a water supply system has been

implemented in August 2013. Gravity fed techniques collect surface water in four

100,000 litre water tanks to assist 400 people. The project takes place in cooperation

with the Labase Cane Producers Association who provided funding of additional

FJD35,000 and the Rotary Pacific Water for Life Foundation which provides technical

assistance for the water system design and plumbing training. Water committees and

rules on the sustainable use of water were established. The short lived project

duration and the coincidence of the implementation with the sugarcane harvesting

season, made it difficult to achieve full community participation. In Yanuca, Laucala

and Taveuni, the main sector identified is also water. A gravity fed water system from

a spring is constructed and water is collected in 10,000 litre water tanks to supply

water to 95 people for washing and bathing. Implementation started in March 2014.

Transport proved to be challenging due to isolation and sea conditions. (Samani

2013b, 19)

In FSM, three communities have been selected as pilot sites, but vulnerability

and adaptation assessments were still in progress at that time. The project activities

are determined after all assessments have been completed and approved by the

NPAC. Adaptation plans were scheduled for February 2014. Nevertheless, all three

sites have done activities on climate change education and outreach. In FSM, coastal

erosion impacts community settlements and challenges residence, livelihood and

food security. Full commitment and a sense of ownership in the projects at

community level are still a challenge. (Samani 2013b, 20)

Adaptation action plans still had to be completed in the three selected

communities of Kiribati. Ewena on Abaigang Island and Buariki on North Tarawa

focus on rainwater harvesting, while Kuria Island concentrates on brackish water

reticulation. Implementation is conducted from March to August 2014. Climate

change awareness trainings take place in the sites, as well as workshops and value

added trainings on food, nutrition, literacy and other issues. Only in Ewena, a

development committee has been set up. Unfortunately, the weak traditional

governance could cause a division of the communities. Thus, it is best to keep close

to the elected mayor and local council to support the project. (Samani 2013b, 21)

54

In the Republic of the Marshall Islands, six potential sites were selected, but

no vulnerability and adaptation assessments to decide for the final three took place

by the end of 2013. The NPAC decided to conduct six full assessments because of

the distance and time spent travelling to each site. The three sites not selected can

use the assessments to find funds from other sources. So far, a national training was

conducted and a community clean-up day was sponsored by the GCCA in one of the

sites in preparation for the PIF. (Samani 2013b, 22)

Implementation already started in the three pilot sites of Niue. Makefu

community focusses on a sustainable development plan, which entails the relocation

of a house to the upper terrace to be run on solar heat and becoming geared up to

receive a rainwater harvesting catchment. Tamakautoga concentrates on food

security, i.e. planting of coconuts, fruit trees and vegetable gardens, and on training

in cleaning rainwater harvesting catchments under the GCCA PSIS project. A

sustainable development plan is compiled. In Avatele community, priorities are the

completion of a draft sustainable development plan, the construction of charcoal

stoves as part of renewable energy and the distribution of solar lights and radios for

the cyclone season. There is an overburden with other community obligations such

as church and NGO work, which led the government to formulate a new policy: a four

day week but five day pay situation might enable the communities to use the free

Friday to catch up on the implementation of the project. (Samani 2013b, 23)

In Palau, the vulnerability and adaptation assessments had not been

completed for the three pilot sites by the end of 2013. Kayangel, Noaraard and

Ngaromau state completed them in February 2014, but conducted national trainings

on the climate change toolkit already in 2012. The adaptation plans were completed

in March 2014 in all three sites, so that implementation could begin in May. The fact

that the budget for the assessment was approved in November 2013, coupled with

typhoon Haiyan, resulted in delays in planning of trainings for the assessments.

(Samani 2013b, 24)

Implementation already started by the end of 2013 in the two selected pilot

sites of Nauru. The priority of Meneng Terrace community is the restoration of an

effective brakish water reticulation system to provide an alternative non-potable water

source. However, some land-ownership issues still need to be settled. Meneng

Statehouse community has the same priority. The projects were planned to be

implemented until April 2014. (Samani 2013b, 25)

55

In Samoa, the projects in the three pilot sites have been implemented and

evaluated by the end of 2013. Faleaseela concentrates on food security and the

subsequent provision of nursery to assist food security issues. The nursery has not

been planned in December 2013, since the village council was busy fund-raising for

a Catholic Church building. Ownership issues challenge the planning. Falealupo

prioritises water and health and has already undertaken water and health adaptive

actions. A donor workshop assists the search for funding and water management

training is done. Furthermore, a health inspection is to be finished by the end of

2014. USAID, who is providing water tanks, only progresses slowly. Sapapalii has the

same priorities as Falealupo, but faces challenges from the availability of the

community, programme synchronicity with resource agents, land issues and

unsupportive government programmes. (Samani 2013b, 26)

On the Solomon Islands, the implementation in the three pilot sites started in

the end of 2013. The first priority of Nagotano community is rainwater harvesting,

followed by health and sanitation. Five water tanks were distributed and a water

committee was set up. Local people are supportive of the project but there currently

is a low level of knowledge. Aorigi community, where wells are unfit for consumption,

has the same priorities, but is challenged by remoteness, finance and a low level of

knowledge about climate change issues. Besides rainwater harvesting, Ngawawa

community also focusses on coastal protection. All communities received short

awareness presentations during the assessments and the adaptation training. Its

wells are inundated with salt water, its population increases and the land for

gardening decreases. Transportation is costly and seldom and the level of knowledge

on climate change is generally low. A general problem for all sites is the difficult

access due to missing shipping schedules, expensive travelling and bad weather. To

overcome these issues, more focus will be put on climate change trainings at

community level and in schools. In addition, selected sites for phase 2 will be more

accessible and less expensive in terms of transportation. Implementation in the sites

was completed in March 2014. (Samani 2013b, 27, 28)

Implementation was then ongoing in the three pilot sites of Timor-Leste.

Ulmera community focusses on the rehabilitation and innovation of the existing

gravity flow water supply system. Additionally, it wants to promote the proper use of

water and replant mangroves to increase fish resources. Laco-Mesac community

wants to construct and rehabilitate its gravity flow water supply system too, in

addition to planting trees uphill and around a spring to protect it. The water committee

56

is to be strengthened and efficient water use will be promoted. Furthermore, tree

planting is supposed to reduce the intensity of landslides; and traditional laws that

prohibit slash and burn techniques and illegal logging will be strengthened. Saelari

community also wants to construct and fix its water system. A gravity water pump is

to be rehabilitated and the community trained to maintain it. The use of clean water

will be promoted, awareness on the importance of forest and nature conservation will

be raised, and reforestation will take place in the high landslide risk zone. The major

challenge in all communities is to finish the implementation of all activities on time.

(Samani 2013b, 29)

The implementation in Tuvalu's three sites had started by the end of 2013.

Nukulaelae Island prefers a water project. Seven tanks of 10,500 litres were installed

in December 2013. The community monitors and evaluates its impact. Nanumaga

Island focusses on a bio-gas project for cooking purposes, which was implemented

between March and May 2014. Funafuti Island also favoured a water project. The

installation of overhead water tanks took place from March to May 2014. The long

duration of material transportation from Fiji to Funafuti and to the project sites caused

high costs for travelling to the two outer island project sites. However, good contacts

with stakeholders existed to assist with transportation and training at community

level. (Samani 2013b, 30)

Tonga's three project sites also started implementing by the end of 2013.

Tu'anekivale community favours a water project to renew its water tank reservoir and

its stand. The water committee will require training when the project is implemented.

Ha'afeva community requires rainwater tanks for a primary school, a health clinic and

14 households. Popua community prefers food security activities, such as duck

farming and vegetable gardens. The communities struggle to obtain enough funds for

the implementation; they need other stakeholders to take up some activities as their

own. (Samani 2013b, 31, 32)

Implementation also started in Vanuatu’s three project sites by the end of

2013. Pele Island community requires a piped water system, practical training on well

construction for rainwater catchment and improved agricultural farming systems. An

important partner in the community is the GIZ, who did most coastal rehabilitation

work already. In Lonamilo community on Tanna Island, people favour adaptive

actions in fish farming, poultry farming, a water supply system and training on

rainwater well construction. A fish pond had been constructed but no funds are

available for water catchment management. Tassiriki on Moso Island improved its

57

agriculture farming system and poultry farming. In February, families concentrated on

the preparations for sending their children to school, so community work was picked

up again in March. (Samani 2013b, 33, 34)

In PNG, implementation started in its three pilot sites, too. The priority of Maili

Island are water tanks and a water committee. Transportation is expensive due to its

isolated location as outer island. Water tanks are the priority of Manumanu

community too, in addition to sea walls. Coastal erosion is another problem, but there

is not enough funding to deal with this issue. Inauabui community focusses on water

tanks as well. The implementation was disturbed through the by-election and the

betel nut ban in Port Moresby which affects the people dependent on betel nut trade.

Again, high transportation costs due to isolation were problematic and people are

indifferent to adaptation because of problems in other important areas. (Samani

2013b, 35, 36)

5.7 National Projects

5.7.1 Papua New Guinea

PNG is home to one of the most significant areas of largely intact tropical forest in the

world, as 60% of the total area of the country are covered by natural forests.

However, it was estimated in 2002, that the combined annual rate of deforestation

and forest degradation was 1.41%.

From October 2013 until October 2016, €8.49 Million are provided to the

country by the GCCA (€6 Million) and the UN-REDD (€2.49 Million). The project

allocates technical support to the PNG Forest Authority99 and the Department of

Forestry of the University of Technology to set up a national forest monitoring system

in support of REDD+ participation and establish a high level platform on forest

governance. It involves the government of PNG, the EU Delegation in Port Moresby

and the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the UN.

Besides its contribution the country's climate change policies and measures on

mitigation, the capacity of the Forest Authority and the UT Department of Forestry will

be improved and staff provided. Field and technical training will be designed and

delivered, and studies on forest and tree characterisation will take place. The project

will complete the first multi-purpose national forest inventory and conduct field data

collection combined with a satellite land monitoring system. (GCCA 2012d)

99 Main institution concerned with the implementation of climate change mitigation and adaptation in

PNG's forestry sector

58

5.7.2 Samoa

In Samoa, 70% of the population and infrastructure is located in low-lying coastal

areas and 50% of the population is living in the Apia urban area and Northwest

Upolu. Because of projected sea-level rise and its consequences100, environmental

sustainability and disaster risk reduction are priorities of Samoa's Strategy for

Development101, in which climate change is identified as cross-cutting issue.

In this project, €3 Million will be provided by the GCCA from July 2012 to June

2015 in support of climate change adaptation for the Samoan water sector.

Cooperation takes place with the Land Transport Authority, the Water Sector Steering

Committee, the Cabinet Development Committee, the Ministry of Works, Transport

and Infrastructure, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and the

Ministry of Finance. Adaptive measures include the support of Samoa's development

strategy by integrating climate change into national and sector development

planning, budgeting and implementation and the integration of adaptation into the

Water for Life sector plan 2012-2016.

So far, the priority drainage infrastructure for storm water flows was restored

and upgraded, based on climate change projections in flood-prone central Apia. The

strengthening of public-private partnerships for the routine maintenance has resulted

in an improved performance of the drainage network. Six watershed management

plans have been finalised and approved by the responsible committees. Additionally,

community engagement programmes are taking place, such as river clean-ups in

affected communities, community seminars, educational programmes and radio talk

back shows. Clear benefits arose from applying integrated approaches to address

both climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. (GCCA 2012e)

5.7.3 Solomon Islands

There is growing concern, seeing first-hand the impacts of climate change as it slowly erodes the very low-lying atoll of Ontong Java. With a number of villages the rising sea level is slowly eating up right to their doorsteps. (Supa 2012)

This €2.8 Million project supports the capacity of the Solomon government in terms of

policy enhancement, coordination and implementation of its national climate change

strategy in line with its NAPA and National Disaster Risk Management Plan

(NDMRP). It is running from March 2011 until March 2014 and cooperates with the

100 Coastal erosion, loss of land and property, dislocation of island settlements, more frequent and

severe floods 101 Samoa has developed a framework of strategies, plans and governance structures that are

considered best practice in the Pacific region

59

Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology

and the Ministry of National Planning and Aid Coordination. Budget is allocated to

these institutions to carry out climate change and disaster risk reduction activities.

People living on low-lying atolls, artificially built islands and other low lying coastal

areas are focussed on.

A vulnerability assessment of affected people and high-risk communities, the

costs of climate change adaptive measures and guidelines for human resettlement

projects are to be completed. Capacities in the Climate Change Division of the

Ministry of Environment remain overstretched as addressing these has been slower

than anticipated. Challenges for effective coordination persist due to the large

number of actors (ministries, donors, NGOs) and the broad definition of the climate

change sector, which includes adaptation, mitigation, disaster management and

environment. (GCCA 2012f)

5.7.4 Timor-Leste

Because of the strong reliance of Timor people on subsistence agriculture,

unpredicted climate events severely test coping mechanisms of rural communities.

Another serious concern in the country is deforestation: forest cover has decreased

by almost 30% (annual rate of 1.2%) between 1990 and 2010 as a consequence of

overexploitation of valuable species, use of wood as a domestic fuel and destructive

conversion for agricultural purposes.

The GCCA-Project in Timor-Leste aims at making farmers more responsive to

environmental degradation and conscious of advantages of reforestation to enhance

resilience and sustainable well-being of rural communities. Additionally, rural

community environments are to be restored. Funded by €4 Million from GCCA FSF

from Ireland, the project runs from December 2013 until December 2018. Project

partners are the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Ministry of State

Administration, the National Directorate for Disaster Risk Management, the

Portuguese Institute for Development Support and the GIZ.

The improvement of livelihood options and adaptive capacity of vulnerable

people and communities through sustainable management of their natural resources

are the central purpose of this project. It will be achieved with local development

mechanisms. So far, rural communities have been enabled to identify adapted

responses to climate challenges which are integrated into socially inclusive village

development plans in about 50% of vulnerable sub-districts. (GCCA 2012g)

60

5.7.5 Vanuatu

Urgent action is needed to avoid a genocidal impact on small island states. We cannot meet the challenges of climate change alone. The GCCA is necessary and will go a long way to assisting Vanuatu meet the challenges of climate change. (Natapei 2009)

Vanuatu was the first GCCA country benefiting from EC funding of €3.2 Million. The

NAPA of Vanuatu, a result of two years of climate change impact analysis with

financial support from the UNFCCC, is to be facilitated with this money. Support is

provided to the National Advisory Board (NAB) for Disaster Risk Management and

Climate Change. It is implemented by the Director of the Department of Meteorology

and Head of NAPA, Jotham Napatetail. (EU 2012, 28, 47)

The project consists of two components. Component A ran from April 2012

until January 2014 and received 93.6 Million Vatu (ca €720,000). Its main objectives

were institutional strengthening, mainstreaming of climate change adaptation and

disaster risk reduction into core aspects of Vanuatu's economy and resource

management system, data collection and policy development. Component B

develops resilience to climate change and natural hazards and is implemented by the

World Bank through an Administrative Agreement with the EC. (NAB 2012)

Vulnerabilities identified in Vanuatu's NAPA were addressed during the last two

years, such as identification and promotion of traditional and improved farming

practices to conserve soil moisture and nutrients to reduce run-off and control soil

erosion. Rainwater harvesting was developed and agriculture diversified to control

flooding. Wetland was to be restored, coastal vegetation replanted and forest

management improved to reduce flooding, coastal erosion and impact of storm

surges. (GCCA 2012h) Furthermore, the development of an early warning and

monitoring system is supported. Its aim is to build the ability of farmers to cope with

critical situations and to map high risk areas as an input to evidence-based land use

planning. (EU 2012, 30)

61

6 Empirical Results

This chapter contains the empirical results collected during the qualitative and

quantitative questionnaires, presented according to the methodology introduced in

the second chapter. The questions were assorted according to the research

questions posed by this study. The major issues are (a) project impression and

visibility, (b) motivation of the EU, (c) beneficiaries, (d) appropriateness, (e) social

networks, (f) influence on regional actors, (g) effectiveness and efficiency, and (h)

sustainability. Overviews of the results from questionnaire A are presented in tables

6.1 to 6.10. A complete overview of how the quantitative questionnaire was answered

is available in Annex D. The answers for single questions from questionnaire B are

presented in diagrams.

Not all questions were answered by all participants. They either specified to

not know the answer or to not be qualified enough to give an answer, or just left the

field empty. For establishing percentage numbers, these missing answers were

simply left out. The number of respondents of a question will be given with every

question and can also be reviewed in Annex D. Most people who declined to answer

were lacking knowledge on the initiative or were lacking time. Most people declining

came from Europe and most responses could be collected from people living in the

Pacific region. In total, 28 people responded. Eight qualitative and 25 quantitative

responses were collected, as five people answered both questionnaires.

6.1 Project Impression and Visibility

The questions which can be subsumed under this general aspect of project

impression and visibility are QA3, QB1 and QB10. The question of QA3 was: “Which

specific project/s do you know and what do you like or not like about them? (Do you

know about progress and success of (one of) the projects?” Here, it could generally

be observed that all participants answering the question know about the GCCA and

its work and maintain a rather positive opinion about it. Characteristics labelled as

positive were that the community is at the core of decision-making and that the

communities most vulnerable are chosen to participate in the project. On the other

hand, participants mentioned the lack of funding, the indifferent attitude of local

people and the limitation to only one adaptation option.

62

Table 6.1 QA3 Summary of comments on project knowledge

Number Answer Quintessence

A2 - Knows PSIS-project: adaptation to climate change in the region, well informed about progress

Well informed

A3 - Knew of one which was a flop, water project on one of outer islands which was never completed - Another project is in process on sanitation, which failed in providing means and ways where the community could obtain toilets; real cause of toilet problems is attitude of people (buy TVs, phones etc. instead of saving little money they have for a toilet)

Good knowledge, indifferent attitude of

people

A4 - I think we are doing well (GCCA-project), lack of funding is the worst part

Doing well, lack of funding

A6 - EU-GCCA project: I like it a lot. Progress and success have been good so far. Hopefully, the project will go on to a second phase.

Positive, hope of continuation

A7 - The GCCA project looks at water security as priority option for all three communities. I really appreciate the criterion and approach used because the community is at the core of decision making, meaning each community identifies its most important priority need with respect to CCA. - All local villages identified rainwater harvesting as their specific project for the GCCA. Piping a water supply would have been an option only if a water source was located close to the project sites. But for the case of the three villages/ communities identified under the EU-GCCA project, they are located on coralline islands. The only option left is through rainwater harvesting. - Positive opinion on what EU-GCCA project is doing because what is transpired at higher level in terms of decision making is seen and felt in rural communities; Project funding has been utilised for its intended purpose. People from one EU-GCCA project site are currently enjoying their drinking water from installation of water tanks for rain harvesting since then.

Water security priority, rainwater harvesting as only option, successful,

community at core of decision making, good knowledge

A8 - I know the USP and SPC EU GCCA projects. I like the USP project as it has a community engagement where demonstration sites (communities) are chosen based on their vulnerability to CC (climate change). - These communities will formulate adaptation plans and implement part of these plans with GCCA funding. This is the catalyst for other parts of their plans to be implemented and funded by the communities themselves (with the assistance of other donors) as their capacity is build up to be able to sustain and maintain the activities that they formulated themselves.

Knows USP and SPC GCCA projects, USP

actively engaging communities,

communities chosen according to their

vulnerability

QB1 asked “Do you have a positive or negative impression of the work of the

GCCA?” 20 of 25 participants answered this question. The positive opinion on the

initiative is also noticeable here, with more than half of the respondents having a

positive impression of the GCCA, and no one ticking ‘negative’. The exact

percentages can be seen in figure 6.1a.

63

Figure 6.1a Bar chart of answers to QB1

QB10 posed the question of visibility, which was assorted to this sub-chapter, as

visibility is the degree of exposure to public notice, and influences the opinion on the

GCCA. A total of 19 participants responded to this question, which is visualised in

figure 6.1b. The answers are rather ambivalent, even if there is a trend towards some

visibility. Participant A5 in the qualitative questionnaire stated that people often

express appreciation for the EU as the funder, but that the GCCA itself is not so

relevant. This is partly due to the acronym not translating well into their languages,

and partly because communities usually simplify project denotations to the area of

adaptation it is pursuing, not the initiative.

Figure 6.1b Bar chart of answers to QB10

64

6.2 Motivation of the EU to Support the Pacific Region

The motivation of the EU has been addressed by questions QA1 and QB2. QA1

asked: “What is, to your opinion, the motivation for the EU to support climate change

adaptation in the world generally, and specifically, in the Pacific Small Developing

States? What do you think are the EU's main interests in the region?” The most

frequent answer in the qualitative questionnaire was ‘the responsibility of the EU’,

either because of the perceived responsibility for climate change or because of the

recognition of vulnerability and lack of adaptive capacity of the Pacific Islands. Some

participants perceive an obligation and pressure on the EU in the international sphere

to support, or a feeling of guilt. Others point out moral reasons and the EU's

willingness to support developing countries in coping with climate change.

Additionally, two respondents pointed out historical and economic ties and political

interest in the region.

Table 6.2a QA1 Summary of comments on motivation

Number Answer Quintessence

A1 - Responsibility towards less developed countries, as these do not possess sufficient financial and technical capacities and experience the impacts of climate change already

Responsibility, lack of adaptive capacity

A2 - SIDS very vulnerable to climate change, need special support - National structures and capacities are partially overburdened by climate change impacts

Vulnerability, Responsibility, lack of

adaptive capacity

A3 - EU believed that cc is undermining development in the Pacific and stepped in to support in whatever way possible to address the problem; thus the EU is also helping to develop the islands

Responsibility, morale

A4 - Political support mainly and feeling guilty Guilt

A6 - EU recognises that these Pacific Nations are the most vulnerable and at the forefront of climate change - Feels it has an obligation towards these nations due to centuries of pollution - It is not a blatant confession of guilt, it is more that it would like to do the right thing and show it is responsible and accountable and that is has a willingness to do something about the issue

Recognition of vulnerability, obligation,

responsibility, willingness to

respond

A7 - What motivates the EU to support CCA is gaining support from other countries politically, because if the EU does not act now these affected countries might be looking elsewhere, e.g. to communist countries or Arabic countries and that would create a threat for EU countries; also for recognition by world leading countries - Pacific SIDS need support because of vulnerability and lacking capacity, finance and technical resources. Need is there, PSIDS cannot cope with current climate change. - EU has political interest in the Pacific region. EU will lose face if it does not act now. - Current CC issues affecting Pacific are not of states' own making but rather due to European and other Westernised industrialised countries stepping up their industries to meet their global demand and increasing population for goods and services.

Political support, recognition, lack of capacity, political

interest, loosing face, vulnerability,

responsibility for climate change

65

A8 - The motivation of the EU stems from the pressure applied by international communities led by developing countries on the developed world to take full responsibilities for their action in causing rapid change in world climate. - Most of the developed world has pledged in international negotiations to contribute some funds to help countries that are vulnerable to impacts of CC. EU countries belong to the developed world, they have committed themselves to this task. They want to reduce the effects of CC in the countries that do not have the capacity to do this themselves. - The Pacific is a vast area with very small islands and communities that are at the forefront of the impacts of CC. Some of these islands were former colonies of the European countries. There are some historical ties as well as economic and humanitarian reasons for the EU intervention in the Pacific and other parts of the world.

Pressure, responsibility, guilt, morale, vulnerability and lack of capacity,

historical and economic reasons,

humanitarian reasons

Question QB2 was divided into five sub-questions, each asking for the importance of

one particular possible motivation to support the Pacific region in climate change

adaptation. Prestige was thought ‘important’ by 37.5%, ‘rather important’ by 50%,

‘rather unimportant’ by 8.3% and ‘unimportant’ by 4.2%. Resources were ticked by

33.3% as ‘important’, 29.2% ‘rather important’, 29.2% ‘rather unimportant’ and 8.3%

‘unimportant’. Influence received 36% for ‘important’, 48% ‘rather important’, 12%

‘rather unimportant’ and 4% for ‘unimportant’. Guilt, which missed the most answers,

was ticked ‘important’ by nobody, ‘rather important’ by 28.6%, ‘rather unimportant’ by

42.9% and ‘unimportant’ by 28.6%. Finally, altruism was rated as ‘important’ by 4.2%,

‘rather important’ by 45.8%, ‘rather unimportant’ by 41.7% and ‘unimportant’ by 8.3%.

This already implies that guilt was generally not important to most participants, while

prestige, resources and influence belonged to the favoured answers. Altruism is in

the middle.

Two empty rows were left for participants to write down their own suggestions.

However, almost no one seized this option. Only four people brought in their own

ideas, which were morals, responsibility and justice, human security, responding to

country requests and winning domestic votes.

The table below illustrates the distribution of answers on the different motives,

according to arithmetic mean, median and mode. Usually, the arithmetic mean is not

applied in statistics. It is only used for comparison as it shows that on average,

prestige and influence received the highest scores with 1.79 and 1.84, somewhere

between ‘important’ and ‘rather important’, whereas guilt came off as ‘least important’

and resources and altruism in the middle. The comparison of the most ticked

answers (mode) indicates that resources received the most ratings for ‘important’ and

that guilt received the most votes for ‘rather unimportant’. Prestige, Influence and

66

Altruism are generally perceived as ‘rather important’.

Table 6.2b Answers to QB2

Motivation of EU

Prestige Resources Influence Guilt Altruism

Answered 24 24 25 21 24

Missing 1 1 0 4 1

Arithmetic mean102 1.79 2.13 1.84 3 2.54

Median103 2 2 2 3 2.5

Mode104 2 1 2 3 2

The median is taken for a visualization of the answers, as it is closest to some

kind of collective opinion. It resembles the middle value of a distribution, taking out

upper and lower extremes. Thus, it can be seen that prestige, resources and

influence with a median of 2 (‘rather important’) were among the reasons for

motivation rated the most important overall, while confession of guilt with a median of

3 (‘rather unimportant’) is the least important of all reasons. Altruism with a median of

2.5 (between ‘rather important’ and ‘rather unimportant’) is also not considered a

crucial factor.

Figure 6.2 QB2 Motives of the EU to Support

102 The value obtained by dividing the sum of a set of quantities by the number of quantities in the set.

Also called average. 103 The middle value in a distribution, above and below which lie an equal number of values. 104 The value or item occurring most frequently in a series of observations or statistical data.

67

6.3 Beneficiaries of the GCCA Support

QA2 and QB3 can be subsumed under the issue of who benefits from GCCA support.

QA2 enquired into “Who benefits how from GCCA adaptation?” and was answered

similarly by all respondents. All agreed that the communities chosen as project sites

are benefiting, i.e. that the local people are actually reached by GCCA support.

Additionally, three participants named national structures/government/ministries as

beneficiaries in terms of capacity building through formal and non-formal training.

Table 6.3 QA2 Summary of comments on benefit

Number Answer Quintessence

A2 - PSIS and SPC involved - EU supports 9 island states to adapt processes and communities to the impacts of cc; political and local level; profit for national structures and decision makers, members of certain communities - USP adaptation programme complements efforts of PSIS, interface of research, knowledge transfer and implementation

Profit for National structures and policy-makers, members of certain communities, cooperation with SPC

and USP

A3 - Most EU projects community-based, meet needs of ordinary people at grassroots

Communities, ordinary people

A4 - Great amount of help from adaptation plans for communities; provision of infrastructure and water needed by people who are vulnerable

Great amount of support for

communities

A6 - Local communities and the implementing agency, the government in this case (though not financially), but more in terms of capacity building and seeing how a community based project can be initiated and what the steps are

Local communities and government in terms of capacity

building

A7 - Three local communities where implementation is currently undertaken are mostly beneficiaries, but also core ministries of the government through formal and non-formal training.

Communities and ministries through

training

A8 - Mostly low-lying coastal communities who are badly affected by sea-level rise, which results in salt water intrusion contaminating their ground water lenses - Coastal erosion, storm surges, tropical cyclones and droughts are some of the effects that are being experienced by the islanders at a more frequent rate and greater intensity.

Mostly low-lying communities who are

badly affected by ground water

contamination and other cc impacts

The query of QB3 was more specified: “Does the support of the GCCA reach many

vulnerable (in terms of climate change) people in the Pacific?” and asked for the

amount of people reached through the initiative. The outcome tends towards ‘few

people reached’ and is visualised in figure 6.3. In total, 20 people answered this

question.

68

Figure 6.3 Bar chart of answers to QB3

6.4 Appropriateness of Adaptive Actions

The issue of appropriateness has been addressed by questions QA6 and QB4. QA6

interrogates: “Do you think that GCCA projects have so far been appropriate? (Where

do you see the focus of the work of the GCCA? Does it address the needs of the

people in the region to reduce their vulnerability to climate change?)” Respondents

concurred that measures of the GCCA have been appropriate so far as local people

were able to identify their needs themselves. However, three of them agreed that

funding is limited and a lot more needs to be done.

Table 6.4 QA6 Summary of comments on appropriateness

Number Answer Quintessence

A2 - Yes, they were appropriate and adjusted to the needs of the people; focus on mainstreaming of CCA and implementation on the ground, training and education

Appropriate

A3 - All GCCA projects are good and appropriate but if there is a problem, then implementers on the ground and management may cause problems - Current project interviewee commenced with a vulnerability assessment which leads to prioritising community needs, activities and programmes based on real needs of the community and not the donor - funds are limited and may not be sufficient

Vulnerability and adaptation has been documented, people are able to identify

their needs and seek funding from

elsewhere, limited funding

A4 - I believe projects are appropriate but they need to move further - They should fund infrastructure that contributes to village problems: e.g. bridges, dams - Governments should do this but they are doing a great amount of damage with nitty-gritty small soft measures.

Appropriate, but more needed; infrastructure important, not

properly funded by governments

A5 - GCCA is channelled through governments or intergovernmental organisations: these generally use participatory approaches to channel the funds.

Appropriate, but channelled through

governments or

69

- Needs of people considered in adaptation approach. intergovernmental organisations

A6 - Yes, appropriate and cost effective. It addresses the needs due to the community based approach of the project.

Appropriate through community approach

A7 - A lot more needs to be done in terms of addressing and reducing the vulnerability of PSIDS, because things are very expensive and the cost of living for many local islanders and small developing states is really high.

High costs of living, a lot more needs to be

done

A8 - GCCA projects have been appropriate so far. The focus of the GCCA is on capacity building, research actions and community engagement. - GCCA is addressing the needs of the people in the region through the demonstration sites (more than 40 communities in 15 Pacific countries) - These communities have identified their vulnerable sectors and prioritise them into their adaptation plans of action. In doing so, they address their most pressing needs where most of the activities deal with water security, food security and coastal management.

Appropriate so far, supporting 40

communities in the Pacific which are

enabled to address their most vulnerable

sectors

Question QB4 wanted to know, “Do the projects of the GCCA act in accordance to

the needs of the local people in matters of climate change issues?” 19 of 25

participants answered this question, with the following outcome illustrated in figure

6.4. The majority of answers implies moderate appropriateness, and generally a

rather positive trend.

Figure 6.4 Bar chart of answers to QB4

70

6.5 GCCA-Influence on Social Networks

The issue of social networks is discussed in QA4, QB5 and QB6. In detail, QA4

enquired, “Which social networks are created nationally and regionally through

GCCA support? With which organisations/ offices is the EU cooperating? Is new

cooperation between actors in the region established?” Respondents named regional

cooperation with USP, SPC, SPREP, UNDP and the United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Participant A2 pointed out that no

new networks are created, but rather existing ones strengthened. Nationally,

cooperation takes place with climate change related ministries. Furthermore, a

network is created though PACE-SD in the 15 Pacific countries engaged in the EU-

GCCA project. This both regional and national network evolves through scholarship

schemes and informal trainings and consists of scholars, experts, scientists and

practitioners.

Table 6.5 QA4 Summary of comments on social networks

Number Answer Quintessence

A2 - Both GCCA programmes collaborate with offices responsible for climate issues in partner countries: regional USP, SPC, SPREP - No establishment of new networks, rather strengthening of existing ones in combination with programmes of other donors - Collaboration of GIZ with PSIS and USP is close and complementary

Collaboration with offices and other donors, regional

cooperation, no new networks

A3 - National network created is the USP Grassroot Network, 15 NGOs working together on cc issues

USP Grassroot Network

A4 - Through GCCA, we have developed rapport with SPC, UNESCO and MNRE; SPREP and UNDP

SPC, UNESCO, MNRE, SPREP,

UNDP

A6 - Regionally USP; Nationally with the Secretary of State for Environment and specifically with the National Directorate of International Environmental Affairs and Climate Change

Regionally USP, nationally with the

relevant government office and secretary

A7 - On the regional level, USP and PACE-SD CCA network is currently utilised in 15 Pacific Island Countries who are engaged with EU-GCCA project - Locally managed climate change network between recipient communities of GCCA project is planned but not yet fulfilled.

USP PACE-SD regionally, locally

only planned so far

A8 - A network of scholars, experts, scientists and practitioners both nationally and regionally is created by the GCCA through their scholarship schemes and informal trainings. - Demonstration sites also create a locally managed CC adaptation network amongst themselves and non-GCCA communities who wish to join and learn from the experiences of the GCCA-communities.

Scholarship schemes and informal

trainings of GCCA create network of

scholars and scientists regionally

and nationally, sharing of community

experience

71

QB5 enquired, “Does the EU cooperate closely with regional organisations and

institutions?” and was answered with a bias towards close to moderate cooperation

of the EU with regional organisations and institutions. The distribution of answers can

be seen in figure 6.5a. No one said that there is no cooperation at all. 23 of 25

participants answered this question.

Figure 6.5a Bar chart of answers to QB5

Another question assorted to this issue is QB6, which asked, “Does the GCCA

support networking of regional actors in the Pacific or does it rather constrain them?”

This question was answered by 19 participants and is visualised in figure 6.5b. Again,

no one ticked that the influence is negative. Thus, the impression of respondents on

GCCA influence on the networking of regional actors is predominantly positive.

Figure 6.5b Bar chart of answers to QB6

72

6.6 GCCA-Influence on Regional Actors

This issue interrogates about the influence of GCCA support on the political and

economic influence of Pacific organisations and institutions. It is addressed by

questions QA5 and QB7. QA5 asked, “Are national/ regional actors strengthened or

weakened through GCCA support?” The respondents concurred that regional as well

as national actors are strengthened through GCCA support. A7 pointed out that

countries are strengthened in their fight against climate change through capacity

building and knowledge sharing. In addition, A8 opines that regional and national

actors are strengthened through formal and informal training and on the ground

activities in communities. The education of new experts at USP and other regional

organisations contributes to this.

Table 6.6 QA5 Summary of comments on regional actors

Number Answer Quintessence

A2 - Strengthened Strengthened

A3 - Strong support but more could be done to build networks - USP, SPREP and SPC have worked collaboratively on projects, strengthened relationships in region - Has also worked with international NGOs like Live & Learn Environmental Education and OXFAM

More could be done, USP, SPREP and SPC cooperated,

NGOs

A6 - I am under the impression that both national and regional actors are strengthened by GCCA support.

National and regional actors strengthened

A7 - Yes, at national and regional level GCCA support strengthened many countries in the fight to address climate change issues. The support through training of human resources, capacity building, dissemination of CC information and findings has done extremely well.

Nationally and regionally

strengthened

A8 - National and regional actors are strengthened by GCCA support through both formal and informal trainings that are conducted both nationally and regionally. - They are also strengthened through on the ground activities that are taking place in the demonstration sites. New regional and national experts in the field are produced at USP and other regional organisations as a result of GCCA support.

Strengthened through formal and informal trainings and on the ground activities in communities, new

experts educated at USP and other

regional organisations

QB7 similarly enquired, “Does the work of the GCCA strengthen or weaken the

political and economic influence of national/ regional actors?” and was answered by

19 participants. The general impression on this issue among participants seems to be

that the EU rather strengthens national and regional actors, which concurs with the

qualitative question. The distribution of answers is presented in figure 6.6.

73

Figure 6.6 Bar chart of answers to QB7

6.7 Effectiveness and Efficiency of GCCA Support

The issue of effectiveness is addressed in QA7 and QB8. QA8, which asked for the

efficiency of the GCCA, is also assorted into this sub-chapter. QA7 queries, “How

effective have the adaptive measures of the GCCA been so far? (How well did it meet

its objectives? Do states become more resilient and gain adaptive capacity?)” The

answer received by most participants was that the effectiveness of the projects is not

yet measurable since the projects have to be implemented completely. Respondent

A2 depicted that for long term processes, an increase of resilience cannot be

measured after two years of project duration. Additionally, the efforts of the GCCA

cannot be seen alone, but always in cooperation with the efforts of other donors. A3

maintained that the initiative is effective as important objectives are met, but more

funding is needed and the attitude of the people has to change. The aspiration for

additional funding was also expressed by A6. A7 mentioned that the GCCA project

addresses only one sector in the respective demonstration site, while all other

sectors of a community are vulnerable to climate change impacts, too. A5 said that

vulnerability has increased despite all efforts and that only time can be bought with

temporary fixes.

74

Table 6.7a QA7 Summary of comments on effectiveness

Number Answer Quintessence

A2 - Long term processes: hardly possible to measure an increase of resilience after two years of project duration - GCCA in cooperation with efforts of other donors

Not yet measurable

A3 - Yes, is effective: project measures are high and it meets its objectives, but more programmes should be conducted in communities and schools that are very basic and can change attitude - True measure of our project is when people are able to change their attitude to be self-sufficient and resilient; Attitude change happening, more needs to be done - Introduced nutrition in one project, community enterprise development and literacy as part of a cc awareness programme; tools and skills should open a pathway to move higher in their thinking, which is adaptive capacity (not the science of cc but rather skills learnt that people can use to counter impact of cc that will build resilience) - Traditional skills should be maintained or restored as many young have lost it

Yes, but more programmes needed,

change of attitude among people

necessary, tools and skills will create

adaptive capacity, traditional skills are

important

A4 - Not really clear at this point in time although it is another level up, e.g. providing drinking water and water tanks

Not yet measurable, but progress

A5 - GCCA reaches few vulnerable people at the moment, but this will likely increase to many once the programmes are fully implemented. However, several country activities have yet to commence so the actual reach thus far is few. - Scale and pace of impacts is increasing, depending on the sector. Ten years ago ocean acidification was rarely mentioned, now people know it is a major threat to marine ecosystems, but still there are almost no solutions. The wind and cyclone pattern changes projected towards latter part of this century seem to happen sooner. Politicians tend to put off what they can, unfortunately that is becoming less of an option. - Learning by doing adaptation – finding it harder to deal with things as coastal erosion, as no protection against it. Only time can be bought with temporary fixes. Vulnerability has increased.

Few vulnerable people reached so

far, full implementation

necessary; vulnerability has

increased

A6 - We haven't started adaptive measures yet, so we need to see. However, additional funds can maximise effectiveness and impact.

Not yet measurable

A7 - GCCA project addresses only one sector. Almost all the other sectors of community are vulnerable to CC issues. Therefore, to measure effectiveness of adaptive measures, monitoring and evaluation of communities is necessary. Only then conclusions can be drawn on how projects benefit communities. - At the moment, we are in implementation phase. Afterwards we will see how it benefits the community and measure it against objectives. A few water tanks were installed in one project site to date. The rest will be installed in the coming months.

Only one sector addressed,

monitoring and evaluation after implementation

necessary, not yet measurable, few

water tanks installed in one site

A8 - The adaptive measures are still to be realised in our communities as we are still working towards the implementation stage. Very soon, we will witness the implementation of the measures and how effective they are.

Not yet measurable, implementation stage

will start soon

QB8 asked, “Do you have the impression that Pacific States become more resilient

and gain adaptive capacity or become more vulnerable?” 23 participants responded

to this question, which is displayed in figure 6.7. The distribution of answers to this

75

question is rather ambivalent, with the majority of answers received for ‘rather

resilient’.

Figure 6.7 Bar chart of answers to QB8

Question QA8 addressed: “Have they (adaptation measures) been efficient? (How

well inputs such as funds and time were converted into outputs? Does the money

actually reach communities?)” Participant A2 responds that they have been partially

efficient, as absorption and implementation capacity in PICs is limited. A3 complains

that funding is available, but that the problem lies with implementers and

management, as there is a problem of keeping documents. A4 opines that project

impact is minimal, while A6 says that the project has been especially cost-effective in

utilising small inputs to achieve large outputs and in inspiring a ripple effect.

Table 6.7b QA8 Summary of comments on efficiency

Number Answer Quintessence

A2 - Partly, in many cases efficient - Limited absorption and implementation capacity on PSIS, therefore strong collaboration with regional organisations - Money partially reaches communities, partially national structures are strengthened

Partially efficient, reaches communities

and national structures

A3 - Funds are always available but implementers and management are the problem - Major factor: when issuing money in outer islands or remote places, there will always be problems of keeping documents - EU should understand that signatures or written documents are produced instead of receipts, to make work easier

Funds available but problem with

implementers and management,

document keeping problematic

A4 - Yes because of soft measures and no because the impact is minimal

Impact is minimal

A6 - I think unlike other projects in the country, the project has been especially cost-effective: using small inputs to achieve large objectives and inspiring a ripple effect.

Especially cost effective

76

A7 - This question might go with question 7 and question 3. - QA3: successful as community at core of decision-making - QA7: only one sector addressed, not yet measurable

Not yet measurable

A8 - I am still organising the activities to be implemented in the communities. Their plans are ready and the budgets have been approved. Only a few things need to be confirmed before the actual implementation of the activities begins.

Plans are ready and the budgets have been approved

6.8 Sustainability

Sustainability is addressed by questions QA9 and QB9. The question of QB9 was,

“Sustainability: Are the projects of a long-term or short-term nature? (Do you think

they will persist after the end of the project period and be continued by local people?

Is it help to help themselves?)” On the one hand, respondents said that the GCCA

provides help to the communities to help themselves. They noted that sustainability

strongly depends on whether a project is community-owned, but also said that more

funding is necessary. Projects are both of long and short term nature, depending on

the kind of adaptation. On the other hand, A4 and A5 see that more needs to be done

concerning the training of local people and overcoming short term adaptation

approaches, such as the provision of water tanks. A5 is of the opinion that

dependence currently is predominant.

Table 6.8 QA9 Summary of comments on sustainability

Number Answer Quintessence

A2 - Yes, it is help to help themselves. There is hope for sustainability of projects and that adaptation approaches will be continued in some countries.

Help to help themselves,

hope for sustainability

A3 - Sustainability depends on the implementer of projects, communication with communities is important - Agreements made, awareness process and spirit of commitment lies in the approach to the community - If a project is community-owned, it will be sustainable

Inclusion of community important,

sustainable if community-owned

A4 - GCCA should mobilise other funding agencies to continue. Our problem now is to train our sites to familiarise with local donors in order to apply for continuity once the project finishes.

Other funding agencies should be

mobilised to continue, local

people have to be trained

A5 - Dependence is often predominant and it is difficult to overcome what is sometimes a quick fix approach, such as buying a bunch of water tanks, or try some climate resilient crops in new places, with a more measured and sustainable approach.

Dependence predominant, quick fix approach needs

to be overcome

A6 - They will be long-term once the second phase of the project has been secured. - Besides that, there is a strong emphasis on self-reliance after the project ends.

Long-term once second phase

secured, strong emphasis on self-

reliance after end of project

77

A7 - The project is short term, but the purchased water tanks last around 20 years before they need to be replaced. Only if the community takes great care for this materials and infrastructures the above mentioned years would be meaningful. - Communities that took part in the GCCA project have already shown ownership for it. As the community perceives itself as part of the project, their ideas were considered. Only then people will maintain project facilities and make it sustainable. Feeling ownership by a community is the most important thing seen in the three project sites so far. - This is why I mentioned in QA3 that when community is the core of decision making, sustainability will prevail because people's ideas and inputs were included.

Short term, but water tank lasts 20 years if community

takes care, ownership and

inclusion of people's ideas needed

A8 - The projects are designed both short and long term. - The plan for the community is to take ownership of their action plans and implement them on a long term basis.

Long and short term, communities

intended to take ownership

Figure 6.8 Bar chart of answers to QB9

QB9 enquired, “Does the work of the GCCA facilitate independence or does it create

dependence?” This also touches the issue of sustainability, as a project is sustainable

when a community is able to independently continue an adaptive action after a

project was finalised. The question was answered by 19 of 25 participants and is

illustrated in figure 6.8 above. It shows a positive trend towards the GCCA rather

creating independence, which is similar to the answers from QA9.

6.9 General Remarks

In the qualitative questionnaire QA, the offer for remarks was not utilised, possibly

because the questionnaire itself offered a lot of liberty in how to answer a question.

Remarks were often stated with the respective question.

However, this was the opposite for the quantitative questionnaire QB. To begin

78

with, four participants who did not answer some of the questions stated their reason

for not doing so was that either the GCCA or detail on its work was unknown. They

did only answer general questions on the motivation of the EU and vulnerability in the

Pacific. One respondent added to QB8 on whether Pacific Islands become more

resilient or vulnerable that there is no change. Another stated that QB4 on

appropriateness was difficult to answer as it depends on indicators used to assess

needs and that to respond to QB8, quantitative analysis needs to be done looking at

different vulnerability indicators. This question was also commented on by a further

participant, who stated that many factors leading to resilience in Pacific countries

might be independent of GCCA development interventions, but dependent for

instance on other donors and climatic events.

Many were positively commenting on the GCCA, calling it a catalyst of change

to the vulnerable people of the region, as it recognises and acknowledges peoples

traditional knowledge together with current scientific research results. Moreover, the

USP project was stated to be a great case study in each of the island countries

devoid of political influence to help local people to help themselves. In particular, the

ability of Pacific people to manage and deliver adaptation financing to benefit people

at community level was trained. Additionally, it was commented on that EU-GCCA

projects are community based but also collaborating with local institutions such as

relevant government agencies and NGOs.

Negative comments mentioned that the project is only conducted in three of

hundreds of local communities, i.e. villages, of each Pacific country. The GCCA thus

has yet to reach many more vulnerable communities. Another participant explained

that the GCCA works only in four Pacific Island countries and might not receive the

publicity and support it needs compared to other regional projects.

One respondent gave the advice that regardless of the costs involved, the EU

and the GCCA should locate their climate change adaptation projects in the remotest

regions of a country as this is where the people live which have the least resources

and knowledge to cope with climate change, and are thus the most exposed and

susceptible.

The next chapter will discuss the empirical results presented, involving further

literature research to support and compare questionnaire findings.

79

7 Discussion

7.1 Project Impression and Visibility

As both questionnaires showed, almost all participants know the GCCA and maintain

a rather positive opinion on its work. Participants highlight that the most vulnerable

communities are chosen to participate in climate change projects and that the

communities are actively involved in decision making. Nevertheless, local people

seem to hold an indifferent attitude towards climate change adaptation. It was evident

from the reports and documents of the GCCA and USP PACE-SD that they try to

engage the communities as they should play an important part in climate change

adaptation.

In the Regional project Support the EU-GCCA through capacity building,

community engagement and applied research, the second component is devoted to

community engagement. This implies among other things that the respective In-

Country Coordinator conducts vulnerability and adaptation assessments in the three

most vulnerable communities of each country. Members of the communities are thus

enabled to voice their concerns and influence adaptation projects to the actual needs

of the community. (PACE-SD 2012)

The Climate Funds Update (CFU) is an independent website providing

information on international climate finance initiatives helping developing countries to

address climate change challenges. They have the GCCA in their repertoire, which

has, according to their data, substantially increased the amount of finance available.

In general, they observed a considerable increase in adaptation finance from

dedicated climate financing instruments in 2011. (Watson et al. 2012)

The data suggest that the most disbursed funding for adaptation projects

currently originates from the GCCA, the Least Developed Countries Fund and the

Special Climate Change Fund. The GCCA has significantly increased its approved

funding for adaptation by $100 Million in 2011, and is now the largest global funder

for adaptation. Until November 2012, it pledged105 $385.36 Million, deposited106

$365.36 Million, approved107 $296.81 Million and disbursed108 $130.99 Million in 29

projects worldwide. (Watson et al. 2012)

However, it is generally recognised that there is a lack of funding by 105 A verbal or signed commitment from donors to provide financial support to a particular fund. 106 Funds that have been transferred from the donor into the account(s) of the fund. 107 Funds that have been officially approved and earmarked to a specific project or country

programme. 108 Funds that have been spent either through administrative means or directly to an implementation

programme or project, with proof of spend.

80

respondents to the conducted questionnaire. Billions of dollars will be needed in the

coming years, to cope with the potential future challenges facing the Pacific Islands.

(Yamamoto and Esteban 2014, 81) Also, the CFU claims that major challenges

persist in generating sufficient funding for adaptation and directing it to the most

vulnerable states, people and population groups. Of the $2.73 Billion pledged so far,

only $1.22 Billion have been approved to support projects and programmes. A major

part of this finance goes to sub-Saharan Africa and Asia and the Pacific. Asia and the

Pacific receive about 27% of total finance. (Watson et al. 2012) They also noted, that

in the wider Asia-Pacific Region, China and India receive and spend the largest

amount of climate finance, whereas the highly vulnerable Pacific Islands receive

comparatively modest amounts.

Twenty-one dedicated climate funds and initiatives operate in the region. This

includes fifteen multilateral funds, five bilateral initiatives and one national fund. Since

2003, $2.27 Billion have been approved, and the Pacific Small Island States only

received 2% of this total amount. Approximately half of the approved adaptation

funding stems from the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience and the Least

Developed Countries Fund. The GCCA, has so far approved $71.17 Million,

disbursed $50.63 Million and authorised ten projects in Asia and the Pacific.

(Schalatek et al. 2013)

There is a lack of transparency and reporting, which makes it difficult to

properly assess the amounts vulnerable countries actually receive. Most climate

finance is spent bilaterally, and managed by development agencies. Since countries

are self-classifying and self-reporting climate-relevant financial flows, there does not

exist a common reporting format or independent verification. Also, for the GCCA,

information is disaggregated or only partially provided, but in most cases up to date.

Transparency is crucial to understand who benefits from public climate financing and

how scarce resources are being used. (Nakhooda, Watson, and Schalatek 2013)

Concerning the question of visibility, answers from questionnaire B were rather

ambivalent, with a tendency towards some visibility. One participant stated that the

EU is known as the funder in many cases, while the GCCA often remains unknown.

The annual progress report from 2013 of the USP-implemented GCCA project states

that press releases, email campaigns, special presentations, social media updates,

advertising, a website and meetings are provided to ensure visibility. (Samani 2013b,

15) However, the EU itself criticises the lack of visibility, on the one hand of the EU in

the Pacific, and on the other hand of the Pacific in Europe. It maintains that there is a

81

lack of reflection of the EU being the second-largest donor in the region, and a lack of

understanding about the region and its needs among Europeans. (EC 2006, 25–26)

7.2 Motivation of the EU to Support the Pacific Region

Motivations identified by QA participants focussed on responsibility either because

the industrialised states of the EU and other developed states are largely held

responsible for human-induced greenhouse gas emissions which cause climate

change; or responsibility in terms of the wealthy developed states of the EU who

have the means to support vulnerable nations with a lack of adaptive capacity. This

implies the recognition of the vulnerability and low adaptive capacity of the Pacific

Islands. Various scholars opine that the ability of small islands to undertake

adaptation programs and their effectiveness can be strengthened through

appropriate assistance of the international community. (Nurse et al. 2014, 3)

Other motivations named and related to responsibility are an obligation and

pressure to do so, and a feeling of guilt for climate change. Some simply identified

moral reasons and a willingness to support developing countries of the EU. One

participant states that historical and economic ties are essential. In contrast, the

respondents from QB identified prestige109, resources110 and influence111 as the most

important motives of the EU.

According to Pavlos Evangelidis, the Attaché for Infrastructure and Natural

Resources of the Delegation of the EU to the Pacific,

[W]e provide development cooperation around the world for many reasons, the most important of which would be to combat poverty, create economic opportunities and a transparent eco-political system to the extent that we can. (Evangelidis 2013)

As climate change is likely to become more intense, development and sustainable

growth will be more difficult. The millennium development goals are seen as the

standard of international development cooperation and poverty eradication. They are

interlinked with climate change in two ways: firstly, advances in reaching the MDGs

contribute to minimizing the vulnerability of impacts from climate change; and

secondly, the scope of climatic changes will co-decide whether the MDGs can be

reached before 2015 and what the development perspective of many people will be

afterwards. (Harmeling and Bals 2007, 4) According to IPCC data, SIDS and LDCs

109 A certain level of respect for conducting development assistance and climate change adaptation. 110 Through the support, the EU gains better access to resources from the Pacific, e.g. fish and

minerals. 111 As the EU is present and active in the region, it can exercise some influence and extend its power.

82

will be hit hardest and earliest by climate change. As they possess only scant

resources to prepare or adapt, the support of the international community is required.

(EU 2011b, 5) To serve justice112, industrialised countries should support developing

countries in adapting to climate change in addition to providing development

assistance. (Harmeling and Bals 2007, 55)

The EU has become an important provider of international development

assistance and climate change adaptation. As also outlined by questionnaire

respondents, it recognises that the LDCs and SIDS require assistance and thus

established the GCCA between poor developing countries most vulnerable to climate

change and the EU. A green paper113 containing a pillar on integrating adaptation into

external action was established and climate change is now systematically integrated

into development strategies and investments. The EU realises that if it does not act

on climate change now, it will be more costly to the global economy in the long term.

(EC 2007, 2–8)

There are no legal or contractual obligations to supply such assistance, but

many donors make public commitments to increase their aid budgets. (Smith and

Hemstock 2011, 4) Financial aid for adaptation increased significantly since the failed

UNFCCC negotiations in Copenhagen in 2009. Many rich states are eager to show

that they are committed to help, even if they have been unwilling to reduce their own

GHG emissions. (Weir and Orcherton 2013, 58) It is also common, that organisations

committed to development cooperation enjoy societal appreciation and moral

integrity, which emphasises prestige as a motive. (Harmeling and Bals 2007, 59)

Therefore, the EU's efforts for a more coherent external policy symbolise its

ambitions to become an influential global actor.

Another motive for EU engagement in the Pacific also rated highly in QB are

the substantial natural resources the region holds. These are, among others, fish,

timber, agricultural produce, oil, gas and minerals. Rising demand by China, India,

ASEAN and others requires sustainable management. The environmental challenges

in the region have global implications, as for instance the future of the world's

fisheries could depend on them (the world’s only fishery not yet heavily over-fished is

in this region). The Pacific Ocean becomes a global good, which needs to be

protected, as well as its immense unique biodiversity. It bears high potential for

112 Annex 1 countries are said to have a historical climate debt resulting from GHG emissions over the

course of their own development. (Ewing 2013) 113 Document published by EC to stimulate discussion on given topics at European level.

83

human health in terms of biotechnology: bioengineered medication and treatments

are developed from living organisms in the Pacific Ocean. A special trade agreement

binds the two regions under the Cotonou Agreement, which entitles the Pacific ACP

states to some trade advantages. Concerning the size of the Pacific states and their

distance to Europe, the 10% of total exports going to the EU are remarkable.

However, only specific products are relevant and traded. (EC 2006, 2–7)

Additionally, the EU has an interest in the stability and security of the region,

since fragile states can pose a severe challenge for the international community.

Climate change acts as a threat multiplier; an ecological breakdown leads to poverty,

tension and conflict and thus, implies lost development opportunities. The social

situation is bad, economies of Pacific ACP states are hardly growing, whereas

population is rapidly increasing and HIV-AIDS among other health risks is becoming

more frequent. (EC 2006, 2–4)

The geopolitical importance of the region is growing, and many influential

global players like the United States, Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand have

security, political and trade interests in the wider Pacific region. An increasing

engagement of China takes a new dynamic to the region, influencing developments.

The EU sees a possibility in enhancing its bilateral relations with these states through

a more active role in the Pacific. Furthermore, it hopes that through a strengthened

partnership and political dialogue, joint multilateral actions can be enhanced. Clearly,

the EU wants to secure votes in the United Nations primarily where the 13 Pacific

ACP members often act as a group. The two regions share many interests on

improved global governance, for instance on climate change. (EC 2006, 4–5)

The international importance of the Pacific is underpinned by a joint US-EU

statement on the Asia Pacific region from 2012. Both intend to coordinate efforts to

address climate change to eradicate poverty in the region. Ensuring access to

energy, while enhancing efforts to reduce emissions are high on the agenda. They

'welcome' an active and constructive role for China in the region. (Federal Information

& News Dispatch, Inc. 2012)

Since the end of colonialism, the role of the EU in the Pacific has been minor.

Additionally, the region is geographically far away and culturally different. However,

the EU and the Pacific SIDS share values such as democracy, human rights, rule of

law, effective multilateralism and environmental protection. They joined forces in

Durban to reach an agreement on climate change and also in Rio, where the EU

supported the SIDS. (PIFS 2012) According to a diplomatic cable released by

84

WikiLeaks in 2010, EU Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told US

Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change Jonathan Pershin that „the AOSIS

countries could be our best allies given their need for financing.“ (Maclellan 2011, 4)

7.3 Beneficiaries of the GCCA Support

As stated by QA participants, local people in the Pacific are reached as the projects

aim to support communities and act according to their needs. This is also evident

from documents and reports provided by the GCCA and implementing organisations

and institutions, such as the USP PACE-SD and the SPC. Rajesh Chandra, Vice-

Chancellor and President of USP, stated that “[...] adaptation measures developed

and implemented in communities will directly benefit those most vulnerable, whose

livelihoods are at greatest risk.” (EU Delegation Fiji 2011)

Through the regional project Support the EU-GCCA through capacity building,

community engagement and applied research, the USP expects a network of national

and regional experts on climate change to evolve, who can support communities,

governments, NGOs and regional organisations. (USP 2004a) Some QA participants

also noted that national structures, governments and ministries are benefiting in

terms of capacity building through formal and non-formal training. Additionally, this

project aims at educating local people in climate change, its impacts and adaptation

methods. Currently, 40 communities across the Pacific were enabled to compose

vulnerability and adaptation assessments to identify their most pressing needs.

These assessments can in turn be used to apply for other sources of funding.

Under the regional project Pacific Small Island States, nine island states

receive on-the-ground adaptation support. It aims at helping countries overcome an

ad hoc project-by-project approach and instead implement a long term approach.

(SPC 2011b) The national projects often aim at building the capacity of climate

change related institutions and mainstreaming of climate change. Community

engagement programmes are taking place and livelihood options are improved.

(GCCA 2012c)

Nevertheless, the outcome of QB shows that participants are of the opinion

that few vulnerable people are benefiting from GCCA support. The reason for this

probably is that funding is generally limited and that the GCCA reaches only few

vulnerable people as only a few demonstration sites are selected in each country.

85

7.4 Appropriateness of Adaptive Actions

Respondents from QA pointed out that adaptive measures of the GCCA have so far

been appropriate, as local people were able to identify their needs themselves,

concerning the regional project implemented by USP. Outcomes from QB showed

moderate appropriateness.

As the GCCA claims that it is acting according to countries' NAPAs and

National Communications (USP 2004b), the following table presents priorities

identified by NAPAs114 and National Communications to the UN of Pacific states.

They are compared to actual project activities conducted by the GCCA. Underlined

priorities are met in some way by the GCCA or expressed in GCCA objectives for the

Pacific region or the respective country.

Table 7.4 Identified priorities versus adaptive actions, underlined priorities are met in some way

Country Identified Priorities Adaptive Actions of GCCA

Cook Islands

Building adaptive capacity, comprehensive climate and risk information through researchers and assessment, institutional strengthening of national bodies to oversee climate change issues, greater integration of climate change in planning and implementation, financing of climate activities and budget constraints (National Environment Service 2011, 13)

Environmental monitoring to enhance community lives and build resilience, improve environment for peal farming and artisanal and small scale commercial fisheries (SPC 2011b) water security, provision of water tanks, coastal protection (Samani 2013b, 17, 18)

Fiji Mangrove and reef protection, controls on pollution, flood control, drought-alleviation, institutional development, watershed management plan, sustainable forest management, vulnerability and adaptation assessment, public awareness raising and education and systematic observations and research (PICCAP and Fiji Country Team 2005, 8–14)

Gravity fed water supply system, water tanks, establishment of water committees and rules (Samani 2013b, 19)

FSM Comprehensive environmental management response strategy, coral reef ecosystems, coastal zones, waste management, forest ecosystems, agriculture, water supply, public awareness, research, technology development and transfer, interagency strengthening (FSM National Government 1997, 3)

Vulnerability and adaptation assessments still in progress end 2013 (Samani 2013b, 20)

Kiribati Mainstreaming CCA and DRR, climate change policy framework, groundwater monitoring, rainwater harvesting, water supply, seawall, ecosystem monitoring, mangrove replanting, reef monitoring, community participation, information accessibility, adaptation awareness (Kiribati Government 2013, 24, 171, 172)

Health workshop, improve implementation of Environmental Health Surveillance and response to climate sensitive health risks (SPC 2011b) rainwater harvesting, brackish water reticulation, trainings on nutrition, literacy (Samani 2013b, 21)

RMI Institutional strengthening, management and operational training, applied research assistance,

Vulnerability and adaptation assessments still to take place end

114 However, it has been noted by the IPCC that NAPAs have the same constraints and problems of

exclusion and narrow focus as other national planning processes. (Adger, Agrawala, and Mirza 2007, 732)

86

professional and technical support, appropriate funding, information management system, confidence and capacity building, awareness and education, international participation, responding to shoreline changes: retreat, shoreline protection, resettlement (Namindrik 2000, 7, 8, 52)

2013 (Samani 2013b, 22)

Nauru Sustainable development, integral coastal zone management plan, water-resource management plan, education, training, institutional strengthening, monitoring of important baselines, evaluation of rehabilitation master land-use plan, national environmental action plan (Republic of Nauru 1999, 10–13)

Provision of water tanks for rainwater harvesting, advance potable water supply to households (SPC 2011b) brackish water reticulation system (Samani 2013b, 25)

Niue Relocation of vulnerable infrastructure, increased research of marine/terrestrial flora and fauna with respect to cc, establishment of database and information systems for accurate monitoring and data collection, technical training (Niue Climate Change Project 2000, 13)

Provision of water tanks for rainwater harvesting (SPC 2011b) sustainable development plan, relocation, rainwater harvesting, planting of fruit and vegetables, solar lights and radios for cyclone season (Samani 2013b, 23)

Palau Capacity building, research and monitoring, national awareness, national development planning (Republic of Palau 2002, 93)

Assessment of water resources and climate related risks, reduction of leakages, installation of appropriate water harvesting (SPC 2011b) vulnerability and adaptation assessments still to complete end 2013 (Samani 2013b, 24)

PNG Integrated coastal management, community based monitoring and management, integrated research, capacity building, stock enhancement of inland fisheries, new water technologies, control vector-borne diseases, improve medical services, public awareness programmes, water carting (PNG 2000, 51–56)

Water tanks, water committee, sea walls (Samani 2013b, 35, 36) national forest monitoring system, forest governance, technical support and training, forest studies (GCCA 2012d)

Samoa Water resources, reforestation, education and awareness, agriculture and food security sustainability, seawalls, essential infrastructure, village development inspections, capacity building, waste management, climate early warning system, conservation programmes, sustainable tourism, climate health cooperation programme, zoning and strategic management planning, coastal infrastructure management plans for highly vulnerable districts (Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology 2005, 22, 23)

Provision of nursery to assist food security issues, water and health adaptive actions, assistance in search for funding, water management training, health inspection (Samani 2013b, 26) restoration of drainage infrastructure for storm water flows, watershed management plans (GCCA 2012e)

Solomon Islands

Agriculture, water resources, health, energy, mining, education, training, public awareness and information, waste management, tourism, fisheries, marine resources, human settlements, coastal protection, infrastructure development (Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology 2008, 6)

Distribution of water tanks, water committee set up, coastal protection (Samani 2013b, 27, 28) climate change and disaster risk reduction activities (GCCA 2012f)

Timor-Leste

R&D of technologies in agriculture, water resource, coastal/marine, improvement water management, protection and rehabilitation of rainfall catchment areas, protection and rehabilitation of mangrove ecosystems, national institutional capacity development, early warning systems, capacity

Rehabilitation of gravity flow water supply system, gravity pump rehabilitated, replanting mangroves, promotion of effective water use, reforestation (Samani 2013b, 29)

87

building of health sector, improved strategic planning, review and revise legislation, building resilience of rural livelihoods to secure national food security (Timor-Leste’s State Secretariat for Environment 2013, 7, 8)

restoration of rural communities, make farmers more responsive to environmental degradation, sustainable management of natural resources (GCCA 2012g)

Tonga Integrated coastal protection, retreat and accommodation, introduction of drought, temperature and salt tolerant crops, agroforestry development, increase awareness, water conservation and management, climate proofing of planning, policy, legislation and all infrastructural development in Tonga, effective epidemiological surveillance of dengue fever for disease control, increase health education, public health awareness programmes, individual and institutional capacity developments (The Kingdom of Tonga 2012, 4)

Coastal protection measures (SPC 2011b) water project, training for water committee, rainwater tanks, duck farming and vegetable gardens for food security (Samani 2013b, 32)

Tuvalu Increasing resilience of coastal areas and settlements to cc, increase subsistence pit grown pulaka productivity through introduction of salt-tolerant species, adaptation to water shortages through increasing household water capacity, water collection accessories and water conservation techniques, strengthening of community health through control of vector borne/climate sensitive diseases and promotion access to quality potable water, strengthening of community based conservation programmes on highly vulnerable near-shore marine ecosystems, adaptation to near-shore coastal shellfish fisheries resources and coral reef ecosystem productivity, strengthening community disaster preparedness and response potential (Department of Environment 2007, 7)

Water project, installation of water tanks, provision of bio-gas for cooking (2013b, 30)

Vanuatu Diversification of crops, better understanding of horticulture and subsistence food crops, hygienic waste disposal methods, management of surface water catchments, maintenance of water supply networks, water conservation, expansion of rainwater storage, engineer constructions so that they withstand cyclone and other extreme events, disaster plan, reduction in harvests of marine resources, involvement of key social institutions, relocating infrastructure, improve understanding of cc, sustainable forestry management (Government of Vanuatu 1999, 33)

Piped water system, practical training on well construction, improved agricultural farming systems, fish farming, poultry farming, fish pond constructed (Samani 2013b, 33, 34) improved farming practices, rainwater harvesting, restoration of wetland, replanting of coastal vegetation, improved forest management (GCCA 2012h) early warming and monitoring system (EU 2012, 30)

Adaptive actions addressing the whole region are formal and informal training115,

awareness raising, implementation of adaptive actions, vulnerability and adaptation

assessments of vulnerable communities, creation of adaptation action plans for

demonstration sites, capacity building, applied research and sustainable

development. (USP 2004a) Moreover, scientific understanding, climate projections

and local knowledge will be integrated in the process of creating appropriate

115 Topics and skills included in workshops and trainings are determined according to the needs and

demands of practitioners.

88

adaptation strategies and a climate change knowledge centre was established.

(GCCA 2012b) Mainstreaming of climate change, technical assistance and training,

long-term strategies and approaches to adaptation planning and support to acquire

funding from other donors are also important objectives. (SPC 2011b)

As can be seen from table 7.4, the GCCA really tries to respond to identified

adaptation priorities. Adaptive actions not mentioned in NAPAs that originate from

vulnerability and adaptation assessments can also be considered as appropriate.

One respondent from QB summarised it nicely with a comment, stating that the

GCCA recognises and acknowledges people’s traditional knowledge as well as

scientific research results. Naturally, the GCCA cannot provide the funding to address

all vulnerable sectors of a country. The GCCA cooperates with other donors who are

augmenting its work and provide assistance to climate change adaptation in other

sectors. Usually, only certain communities and not the whole country benefits from

adaptive actions, so that only a small part of the total population is reached. Many

respondents of QA similarly claimed that funding is limited and more needs to be

done.

Mrs Hemstock and Mr Smith opine, that the number of island states included

in the regional USP-GCCA project is notable, as it intends to counter the

diseconomies of scale. They approve of the attempt to share expertise and other

resources, which is commendable in some respects. However, each of the states

involved has their own set of issues and circumstances, and it might not be possible

to operate under a 'one size fits all' approach. (Smith and Hemstock 2011, 3–8) This

issue is also highlighted by the EU and PIF who maintain that comprehensive

national strategies and action plans need to be established as the impacts of climate

change will vary from country to country. (EU and PIF 2008a, 128) This aspect is also

recognised by the IPCC, who maintains that adaptation is place and context specific,

and therefore, diverse interests, circumstances, social-cultural contexts and

expectations need to be considered. (IPCC WGII 2014, 22, 23)

Important for adaptive actions to be appropriate is first and foremost the

inclusion of the community in the decision-making process. Over the past 25 years,

this was problematic as Pacific Island states were used to apply adaptive solutions

from external donors which were often culturally and environmentally

inappropriate.116 This is due to the limited understanding of the average person of

116 Both donors and recipient governments have requirements, leading to islands having to

accommodate adaptive solutions from different environmental contexts, imposed uncritically on

89

climate change and its impacts. Information on climate change has been filtered

through private media presenting extreme views and situations which most

communities cannot relate to their individual circumstances. Currently, Pacific

communities are increasingly demanding effective and sustainable solutions, which

are appropriate to their environments and cultures. (Nunn 2013, 151–159)

Additionally, problems persist on the distribution of development, which is

usually concentrated in the core of a nation. The periphery often tends to be left

behind, as they are difficult to access and may maintain a traditional way of life.117

They are barely visited by government environment officers or representatives or

international organisations. Thus, climate change solutions are differently understood

and implemented; and usually the centre adopts the more appropriate solutions. On

the periphery, people are often misinformed about climate change and decision

making is led by instinctive responses. More work on rural areas, outer islands and

secondary communities is needed. (Patrick D. Nunn 2009, 218; P. D. Nunn et al.

2013, 221)

It is widely accepted that traditional knowledge networks, technologies and

skills can be used effectively to support adaptation in certain contexts118. (Nurse et al.

2014, 24) Community involvement is essential, as local people can provide insights

into their interests, desires and perceptions. (Kelman 2010, 606) It is a mistake to

equal islandness with vulnerability, as their characteristics can also contribute to

resilience. These populations usually consist of tightly knit communities based on

kinship which enables rapid and effective responses as everyone knows each other.

Furthermore, local and traditional knowledge supports flexibility in using local

resources and techniques to adjust to change. Thus, it is a mistake to ignore islander

concerns regarding their fate under climate change. (Kelman and Khan 2013, 1132)

Rather, a balance between internal processes and external assistance should be

achieved. (Kelman 2010, 606)

One way to better include the community is to communicate the challenges of

climate change effectively to Pacific Island decision-makers. This implies that

communication occurs via local languages, and not English as many islanders are

not comfortable speaking it. Additionally, climate change should be communicated in

environments and cultures, where they are far less effective. (Nunn 2013, 151)

117 Young people leave to search employment in the centre, so that a traditional lifestyle is reinforced as only the elderly and children are left. (Nunn 2009, 218)

118 Traditional systems appear less effective when multiple civilization-nature stresses are introduced. (Nurse et al. 2014, 25)

90

culturally appropriate and familiar terms to ensure that the message is clearly

apprehended. Moreover, decisions are usually made by the community that owns the

respective area; the government plays no role. Therefore, there is a lack of

enforcement of policies and the top down approach commonly fails in the Pacific

context. A bottom up approach, i.e. direct input to the community level, is necessary.

(Nunn 2009, 216–220)

To sum up, for appropriate adaptation, communities have to recognise their

need and seek help for themselves. The whole community has to participate in

planning and implementing activities. (Weir and Orcherton 2013, 62) The community

needs to be engaged in a two-way communication: they also have to offer important

insights and it is important to understand the community to know which measures are

necessary. And, most importantly, one size does not fit all. (McNamara, Hemstock,

and Holland 2012, 24) The GCCA tries to apply these things in conducting individual

vulnerability and adaptation assessments for the demonstration sites and including

the community as much as possible.

7.5 GCCA-Influence on Social Networks

The result of the questionnaires showed that the GCCA cooperates with various

regional organisations. Especially important are USP, SPREP and SPC who are

implementing the two regional projects. Other regional partners are PIFS, World

Wildlife Fund, IPCC, WMO, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and

GIZ. (USP 2013)

Furthermore, regional networks are created through USP students who come

from all parts of the region and mostly stay there to support regional and national

organisations and institutions. Workshops, conferences and seminars take place with

participation of leading climate specialists from around the world and a regional

mechanism to support access to international funding will be set up. (GCCA 2012b)

Nationally, cooperation takes place with climate change related ministries.

Through the PSIS project, cooperation takes place in the Cook Islands with the

Climate Change Cook Islands Office. In FSM, the GCCA cooperates with the Office

of Environment and Emergency Management and the GIZ. In RMI, it is the Office of

Environmental Planning and Policy Coordination and the Environmental Protection

Agency. In Niue, the GCCA works with the Department of Meteorology and Climate

Change and the Department of Environment. In Tonga, it collaborates with the

Ministry for Environment and Climate Change and in Palau with the Office of

91

Environmental Response and Coordination, the National Environmental Protection

Council and the National Climate Change Country Team. In Tuvalu, it is the

Department of Environment. (SPC 2011b)

For the regional project in collaboration with USP, In-Country Coordinators

were recruited to work together closely with the USP, EU and all stakeholders, NGOs

and organisations in all 15 participating Pacific states. They conduct awareness

activities, identify vulnerable sites, report back to the USP and share experience and

knowledge. (Samani 2012a, 12) Thus, national as well as regional networks are

created, which are supported by the network the USP creates through scholarship

schemes and informal trainings with the participation of scholars, experts, scientists

and practitioners. One respondent said that no new networks are created, but rather

existing ones strengthened.

The annual progress report of December 2013 states that a climate change

communications network is formed for Fiji and the region by the project

communications officer as a platform for partners working in climate change to

collaborate more effectively. A network of CROP agencies, NGOs, relevant

government departments, civil society organisations and communications specialists

of development partners is created through the GCCA project. (Samani 2013b, 15)

Also for the national projects, the GCCA cooperates closely with important

stakeholders. In PNG, this is the Forest Authority and the Department of Forestry of

the University of Technology. (GCCA 2012d) In Samoa, it works with the Land

Transport Authority, the Water Steering Committee, the Cabinet Development

Committee, the Ministry of Works, Transport and Infrastructure and the Ministry of

Natural Resources. (GCCA 2012e) In the Solomon Islands, it collaborates with the

Climate Change Division of the Ministry of Environment and Disaster Management.

(GCCA 2012f) In Timor-Leste, it is the National Directorate for Forestry (GCCA

2012g) and in Vanuatu the Meteorology and Geohazards Department and the

Department of Environmental Protection and Conservation. (GCCA 2012h)

The cooperation of the EU with regional organisations and institutions was

also evident from QB, where respondents mainly stated that cooperation is either

close or moderate. Furthermore, they say that the GCCA generally has a positive

influence on the networking of regional actors, which is also evident from literature

review.

In contrast, in 2006 the EU explicitly criticised that regional cooperation was

ineffective. It said that the only structured interaction was provided by the post-Forum

92

dialogue, which was the only opportunity for heads of state and government to

interact with main forum partners and donors at ministerial level. It takes place after

the annual summit of the PIF leaders. On the PIF side, a panel takes part consisting

of three ministers and the Secretary-General with one minister representing the

Forum chair as head of delegation. On the EU-side, only the Commission is

participating. To the EU, this dialogue was not reflecting the importance of the EU-

Pacific relations and was insufficient in sustaining the bilateral relationship of the

regions. There was a lack of formalisation and insufficient time for the EU to prepare

its reaction to the summit outcome and also the time frame for the interregional

dialogue itself was too limited to deal with comprehensive issues. Thus, impact of the

cooperation was limited. (EC 2006, 25–26) Unfortunately, no actual record of this is

available, so no comment can be made on whether the situation has improved by

today.

7.6 GCCA-Influence on Regional Actors

The results of both questionnaires displays that both regional and national actors are

strengthened through GCCA support. In QA, respondents stated that the Pacific

countries are strengthened in their fight against climate change through capacity

building, knowledge sharing, formal and informal training and on-the-ground activities

in communities. Also in QB, the question was aimed at the political and economic

influence of PICs, and answered by most participants with the GCCA having a rather

strengthening influence.

The strengthening influence of the GCCA projects is also evident from

literature review. Through the GCCA-USP project, a network of national and regional

experts is expected to evolve who can support communities, governments, NGOs,

development partners and regional organisations that often lack deep knowledge on

climate change. Thus, the region’s capacity to adapt is to be developed and

strengthened. (USP 2004) Significant progress was made on this issue in 2012,

when personnel was trained in all 15 Pacific ACP states to assist their governments

and communities in climate change adaptation initiatives. Moreover, all of the 15

countries have their own In-Country Coordinator now, who is trained on DRM and

CCA. (Samani 2013b, 30–50)

Most importantly, the education of new experts at USP contributes to this. A

crucial step in this component is the MoU of the USP with climate change related

agencies in the region on internships, so that students can gather experience and

93

agencies can learn from the knowledge acquired during their studies. Furthermore,

some students were able to attend the COP19 negotiations in Warsaw and some

alumni are already working as lead negotiators for AOSIS, the Group 77, as

lecturers, for the GIZ and as research assistants. (Samani 2013b, 5–13)

7.7 Effectiveness and Efficiency of GCCA Support

The question on effectiveness proved to be difficult to answer. Many participants

stated that it is not yet measurable, since the projects have not been completely

implemented. For long term processes, an increase of resilience cannot be

measured after two years of project duration. In addition, a qualitative analysis would

be necessary, looking at different vulnerability indicators. One problem measuring

adaptation effectiveness is that it is difficult to define an unambiguous criterion for

adaptation efficiency as most projects also have benefits in terms of health, safety or

economic growth. Therefore, adaptation funding cannot be discussed in isolation

from other policy components. (Przyluski and Hallegatte 2010, 2) Respondents

maintain that the efforts of the GCCA cannot be seen alone, but in cooperation with

funding partners. Many factors leading to resilience in Pacific countries might be

independent of GCCA interventions but dependent on other donors and climatic

events.

The opinion of participants is divided concerning the project impact of the

GCCA, with some saying it is very limited as only one adaptive option in one sector is

addressed and only few communities benefit from GCCA support. Important

objectives are met but more funding is needed and the attitude of people has to

change. In contrast, others responded that GCCA projects have been especially cost-

effective and managed to turn small inputs into large outputs inspiring a ripple effect.

This implies that circumstances differ in each project site, influencing the

effectiveness of adaptation.

The distribution of answers in QB of the question on whether people are

becoming more resilient or vulnerable was also rather ambivalent, tending towards

people becoming rather resilient. One participant added that there was no change.

This supports the outcome of QA, showing that it is currently difficult to answer the

question.

The progress report of the USP-GCCA project published in December 2013

provides some insight into achievements. Among other things, it shows the results of

a Results Oriented Monitoring which displays that effectiveness to date increased

94

from a C in 2012 to an A in 2013. Impact prospects were improved from a C to a B as

well. (Samani 2013b, 9) The reason for this is that some of the projects’ objectives

have already been met.

Firstly, the objective of developing and strengthening Pacific ACP countries'

capacity to adapt was to be reached through training of personnel in 15 ACP

countries to assist and guide their governments and communities in CCA initiatives.

By the end of 2013, 681 local trainers had been trained, 65 Postgraduate Diploma

students graduated, and 14 students completed the MSc Climate Change. 101 rapid

assessments were conducted in all 15 states, 37 full vulnerability and adaptation

assessments were conducted, 26 adaptation plans were developed and nine

countries started to implement their plans. (Samani 2013b, 49)

Another objective is capacity building through formal training, resulting in an

increased number of local skilled professionals trained on climate change. By the end

of 2014, 65 new postgraduate diploma students will be trained, which exceeds the

original target of 45 students by 20. Additionally, 25 new master students and three

new PhDs will be trained. 36 EU-GCCA postgraduate diploma in climate change

scholarships have been granted so far, also exceeding the original aim of 16. By the

end of 2014, 25 EU-GCCA masters in climate change scholarships should be

granted; 22 have been granted so far. Also, the target of 316 trained trainers was

exceeded as 681 local trainers have been trained so far. (Samani 2013b, 50)

The purpose of the project to improve the level of understanding of climate

change in the region through formal and informal training, on-the-ground adaptation

activities and applied research has also progressed. 516 locals were trained in five

countries to raise community awareness of climate change, its impacts and what can

be done in response. 43 demonstration sites have to implement, monitor and

evaluate their adaptive measures; so far, nine countries have started implementation.

The creation of a Locally Managed Climate Change Alliance (LMCCA) network

between specialists and communities involved in the demonstration projects will

commence in 2014. Another aim is that at least 25% of PACE-SD scholarship

graduates work in a field related to climate change and help their governments,

NGOs, AOSIS and regional organisations in their effort to adapt to climate change. A

PACE-SD alumni profile was set up online to visually track this indicator. (Samani

2013b, 49, 50)

One important result is an increase in community engagement in adapting to

climate change. For this, NPACs are to be established in 15 countries. Additionally,

95

101 rapid assessments have taken place, far more than planned, and 37 of 43

community vulnerability and adaptation assessments have been documented by the

end of 2013. All of these 43 communities have to develop adaptation plans, of which

so far 26 have been completed. (Samani 2013b, 53)

Other objectives are to improve historical climate analysis, projected climate

analysis, understanding of climate change impacts on sectors, improved

understanding of challenges and opportunities of multilateral environmental

agreements and to develop more robust projections of short, medium and long term

weather and climate forecasts. ICCs, regional resource managers, students and

community members with access to meteorological forecasts data and awareness of

regional climate services products have been increased to the targeted number.

(Samani 2013b, 54, 55)

However, many Pacific leaders have stressed that they are generally not

benefiting from the pledged fast-start finance of the EU, Japan and other nations.

(Maclellan 2011, 4) The main tensions identified for the effective delivery of

adaptation funds are a lack of donor coordination, the conditions attached to

individual funds, the short-term approach of Pacific politicians and the weak capacity

of Pacific governments. (Maclellan and Lebedev 2011, 3) Questionnaire participants

also explained that funding is available, but that there is a problem with implementers

and management.

Because of the lack of donor coordination, there does not exist a unified

system of funding. Instead, everyone has their own governance and accountability

requirements. There are over 40 international and regional funding mechanisms,

some global funds and bi-lateral initiatives, such as the GCCA. Attached to this is the

complexity of donor requirements which delays the delivery of funds. (Maclellan and

Lebedev 2011, 3) Besides this, there is a general lack of consultation between

governments and non-state actors, which is actually legally binding under the

Cotonou Agreement. (EU and PIF 2008a, 185) Inclusive and meaningful partnerships

should be built between these. (Maclellan, Meads, and Coates 2012, 8) Better

collaboration between governments, non-state actors and donor organisations would

not only make adaptation more efficient, but also help to minimise the duplication of

development tools. (Samani 2013b, 6)

Moreover, governments need to play a leadership and coordinating role to

mobilise a broad response across Pacific countries based on the common aim to

build resilience. (Maclellan, Meads, and Coates 2012, 1) Currently, they are focused

96

on economic growth and short term objectives, investing little in non-profit

environmental sustainability. To ensure effectiveness, they should take more

ownership of adaptation and external assistance should not be applied routinely but

only for special issues. (Nunn 2009, 211)

Another problem is the weak capacity of Pacific government ministries

because they are so small and their staff has difficulties coordinating their roles which

directs attention away from concrete work. (Maclellan and Lebedev 2011, 3) 35% of

funding is usually designated for supporting the administration of the aid sector,

instead of delivering practical projects. (Smith and Hemstock 2011, 10)

Furthermore, as the access to adaptation finance depends on the evidence of

climate vulnerability, some people fear that countries will compete to compose the

most confronting vulnerability assessments to increase their attractiveness as funding

destinations. Climate finance is vulnerable to corruption due to the lack of

transparency, accountability and integrity. This could delegitimise global climate

finance at state and community levels. Thus, resource flows should be tied to the

institutions, policies and recipient governments, so that those affected by adaptive

measures have a stake in owning the process and results of local climate

governance. (Ewing 2013)

A good practices review of the USP provides a list of recommendations to

make adaptation to climate change effective: adaptation projects should set out clear

and achievable objectives, traditional hierarchical systems should be understood and

respected, education and awareness raising should be done in local languages, local

knowledge should be included in adaptation planning and adaptation activities should

be open, transparent and participatory, so that the needs and interests of various

stakeholders are balanced. (USP 2011, 10)

Furthermore, learning and accountability should generally be strengthened

through sound accessible information, evidence and monitoring and evaluation

across society to improve performance. National capacity should be enhanced by

increasing resources, aligning funding with national strategies, increasing staff

training, improving national collaboration, enhancing government capacity, expanding

inclusive technical working groups, strengthening capacity in outer islands and

remote areas and building capacity for non-state actors. (Maclellan, Meads, and

Coates 2012, 8, 58) Such an advice also came from a questionnaire participant, who

states that adaptation projects should be located in the remotest regions irrespective

of the costs, as these people have the least resources and knowledge to cope and

97

are the most exposed and susceptible.

The USP sees the most effective approach to climate change adaptation as a

mix of top-down institutional capacity building and bottom-up community level project

implementation. This is the strategy the GCCA is applying in the regional project in

cooperation with USP. For climate change adaptation to be manageable and cost

effective, it should be accomplished collectively among all development partners. The

priority objective for the PICs in the 21st century is to mainstream climate change

adaptation and disaster risk reduction in all national development goals. (USP 2011,

42, 43) Finally, to improve access to climate funding, the Pacific engagement in

global negotiations should be strengthened. (Maclellan, Meads, and Coates 2012,

70)

Aid effectiveness is recognised by Pacific leaders as paramount for adaptation

planning and implementation. They adopted the Pacific Principles of Aid

Effectiveness which draw on the Paris Declaration from 2007. Important aspects

highlighted in these principles are ownership119, alignment120, harmonisation121,

mutual accountability, managing for results and policy coherence. (EU and PIF

2008a, 53, 54) The GCCA is piloting the use of budget support as a delivery

mechanism to enhance aid effectiveness. (GCCA 2012a)

However, both the results of the questionnaires and the literature review show

that the GCCA seems to be on the right path, but a lot more needs to be done to

achieve effective outcomes. For most projects, effectiveness is not yet measurable

as the implementation has either not begun or still has to be completed. Thus, some

time will need to pass before a final evaluation can be done.

7.8 Sustainability

Among questionnaire participants, answers on the issue of sustainability varied, but

were mostly positive. They mentioned that sustainability is highly dependent on

whether the project is community-owned and what kind of adaptation is implemented.

Some recognise that the GCCA tries to provide help to communities to help

themselves. In QB, most respondents said that the GCCA rather supports

independence, but the distribution of answers was mixed, so no clear statement can

be made. Thierry Catteau, working for the Infrastructure, Natural Resources,

Environment and Energy Section of the EU Delegation for the Pacific stated in

119 Developing countries set the agenda 120 Donors align with country agendas and use country systems 121 Donors establish common arrangements, share information and simplify procedures

98

relation to the USP-GCCA project that the communities and staff should be able to

sustain the project as the ground work has already been laid. (Samani 2013b, 70)

On the other hand, participants remarked that more funding is necessary and

that more needs to be done concerning the training of local people and to overcome

short-term adaptation approaches. One participant stated that dependence is

currently predominant and that these temporary fixes only buy time. From the

literature review it becomes clear that the preconditions for sustainability are similar

to these for effectiveness and appropriateness. Community participation and

ownership, government capacity, donor coordination and the cooperation of all

stakeholders are essential.

The collaboration between stakeholders can increase effectiveness as it can

lessen the occurrence of simple mistakes. Vulnerability is expected to increase where

coordination is limited and where community organisations are operating in isolation.

(Ferdinand et al. 2012, 84pp) Local networks and trusting relationships between

communities and government appear to be essential for adaptation. (Nurse et al.

2014, 27)

It is often the case that new ideas are explained, absorbed, accepted and

ignored thereafter. Climate change is continuously regarded as a foreign construct.

The perception that it is the developed nations who are responsible and will do

something about it is widely spread. Thus, a culture of dependence is created,

turning climate change into an alien problem which has to be solved by outsiders.

(Nunn 2009, 213) However, donors usually guarantee funding for three to five years

to fund certain initiatives. Unfortunately, recipient governments generally do not take

over the costs of these projects, so they are terminated after the external funding

ends. Thus, circumstances revert to those existing prior to donor projects. This

approach discourages the ownership of climate change adaptation by Pacific people

and subordinates it to donor preferences. (Nunn 2013, 151)

It has been assumed that showing the communities what to do would result in

them doing it as well, but adaptation has remained a foreign business. The fact that

almost all information on climate change in the last decade has been in English, a

foreign language to the majority of local people, has contributed to this. For

adaptation to be sustainable and effective, people have to take ownership of the

projects. As aforementioned, climate change should be discussed in vernacular

languages and in appropriate cultural contexts. (Nunn 2013, 159) In many cases,

information on climate change is presented from a scientific viewpoint without

99

considering how the audience receives that information. As decision-makers and the

general public in the Pacific do not have an extensive knowledge on climate change

impacts and how to deal with them, they currently perceive to not be affected.

Instead, they require real-world tangible examples to understand their problem.

(Glantz and Kelman 2013, 1–6)

For this reason, there is a lack of commitment of political leaders, who are

more concerned about economic development. As they have little money, they

usually do not invest into things without a short-term financial gain, but invest into

tourism, mining and forestry instead. Long-term planning is needed, but problematic

in smaller poorer democratic nations as many less educated people in rural areas are

not too concerned about their islands' long-term future. The short-term consequences

of sustainable development are unpopular and governments that give money to

individual pockets tend to be re-elected, so that politicians are generally not brave

enough to follow through with politics that hinder economic development and income.

(Nunn 2009, 213–225)

Therefore, environmental sustainability is marginalised by politicians who

satisfy international watchdogs through subscribing to the rhetoric of sustainable

development and ratifying all relevant international agreements to secure the steady

flow of external assistance. This subordination of climate change is encouraged by

international donors who accept the situation. (Nunn 2009, 218, 219)

In addition, there is a lack of capacity of national governments in the Pacific to

respond to climate change. Most governments have departments responsible for

national environmental management, but few have personnel responsible for climate

change. If they do, these are usually funded by external aid and only on a short-term

contract. Government employees working in environmental management are

generally overstretched that they are unable to develop or implement appropriate

strategies. It also seems as if the attendance of courses to build government capacity

to deal with climate change is ineffective. (Nunn 2009, 219)

In fact, many efforts focus on capacity building within governments to

understand and confront climate change, but so far, no government managed to

produce a climate action plan varying significantly from international agendas.

International priorities thus become national priorities and lead to a lack of will to

enforce these. Therefore, improved understanding of climate change and the

enforcement of climate related policy are key challenges for Pacific decision-makers.

(Nunn 2009, 215)

100

This need to increase people’s skills and capacity in relation to climate change

and appropriate adaptive activities to achieve sustainability is also recognised by the

USP. Capacity in understanding climate science and analysis and interpretation of

climatic data should be increased. In addition, the understanding of the effects of site

specific coastal processes and impacts of sea-level rise to coastal zones and

infrastructure needs to be developed. Also, the risks and costs of climate variability

and change should be quantified. (USP 2011, 10, 40–44)

Furthermore, since communities often make decisions independently of their

national governments, persons of influence at community level should be given

information rather than their governments. These are usually more concerned with

their people and sustainable interactions of these with the environment. As they often

lack knowledge on appropriate responses to climate change, they should be

empowered to take appropriate decisions. Traditional leaders often make short-term

decisions, which could thus be turned into informed and sustainable ones. (Nunn

2009, 215; Nunn 2013, 160–165)

Moreover, as there are too many communities vulnerable to climate change to

visit each individually, strategies should be developed whereby communities can

share their experiences with similar communities. The internet would be appropriate

to realise this, but unfortunately many rural communities do not have access. (Nunn

2009, 221) Local knowledge should be accepted and not be subordinated to Western

science and technology. Local strategies to deal with climate change are sometimes

wrongly dismissed, as it is the lack of supportive institutions and financial resources

that constrains them from implementing adaptive measures. (Kelman and West

2009) The USP identifies the hardest part to be the bringing about of a behaviour

change for adaptation. It acknowledges that sustained communication through

traditional and non-traditional methods will be necessary. Participatory solution

finding and engagement with the community are key for a successful adaptation

process. (Samani 2012a, 12–51)

Various scholars suggest that adaptive responses that augment actions which

would be taken in the absence of climate change are the most effective and

sustainable ones. (Mimura et al. 2007, 709) With medium confidence, the IPCC says

that climate change adaptation generates a larger benefit to small islands when it is

delivered in conjunction with other development activities. (Nurse et al. 2014, 3) The

GCCA recognises that climate change is linked to all sectors of development and

needs to be a central consideration in national planning and development. Thus, it is

101

committed to embed climate change into all national and sector development

planning and budgeting, i.e. mainstreaming climate change. This enables partner

countries to tackle the impacts of climate change today and in the future.

Mainstreaming uses national agendas and systems and supports institutional

strengthening and capacity building and thus upholds the principles of aid

effectiveness. (GCCA 2012a)

The GCCA's major objective is “[t]o improve understanding of climate change

regionally through formal and informal training, practical on-the ground adaptation

activities at community level, and applied research.” (GCCA 2012b) It tries to

implement a sustainable approach to climate change adaptation in various ways. As

aforementioned, it actively involves communities in identifying vulnerabilities and

deciding which adaptive measures will be implemented, to ensure that they will

continue the projects. Raising awareness and community workshops on climate

change and adaptation aim at enhancing local people's knowledge of and concern for

these issues. The formal education at USP educates local people on climate change

who can then support their governments and eventually increase their capacity.

Vulnerability and adaptation assessments not only provide information for the USP

but also to other stakeholders and communities who can learn from another

community's experience. Moreover, communities are enabled to seek funding on

their own.

Nunn provides a list of the most sustainable solutions to various issues. As an

example, he opines that as the key effects of increased climate variability and

extreme events affect the water sector and agriculture, their exposure should be

reduced by changing crop types and improving food preservation and water storage

capacity. Shoreline erosion is sustainably confronted by planting mangroves and

restoration of coral reefs. A sustainable solution to inundation would be the relocation

of people, except that it is difficult and problematic. He provides a table with a

collection of sustainable solutions to various climate change challenges. (Nunn 2009,

221, 222)

Some actions of the GCCA in the Pacific align with Nunn's recommendations.

Many projects of the initiative are focussed on providing and improving water supply

systems to increase water storage capacity. The GCCA also tries to support the

management of these systems. The construction of gardens and support for animal

farming helps ensure food security. Coastal protection is often translated into

replanting of coastal vegetation, sometimes into sea walls. Nevertheless, the effort

102

made by the GCCA to support sustainability is obvious.

The most sustainable, appropriate and effective solution to sea-level rise and

other climate change related issues in the Pacific will eventually be relocation. As

climate change potentially affects natural resources and human security, the pressure

on people to leave their homeland increases. Even before the islands drown, they will

become uninhabitable because their freshwater lenses will vanish. (Nunn 2013, 164)

Various authors concur that there will be a need for migration due to the high costs of

adapting on islands. (Nurse et al. 2014, 26)

Scheffran et al. (2012) opine, “Throughout history, human migration has been

an adaptive response not only to poverty and social deprivation but also to

environmental and climatic change.” Despite the fact that migration was often

associated with hardships, it offers opportunities to obtain new knowledge, income

and other resources and create social networks across regions. “This social capital

contributes to the adaptive capacity and resilience of home and host communities

and helps to develop joint responses against climate change.” (Scheffran, Marmer,

and Sow 2012, 119)

There are three types of migration: adaptation preventing forced migration,

migration-as-adaptation and migration-for-adaptation. Currently, adaptation

preventing migration remains dominant but with the increasing relevance of climate

change, migration-for-adaptation might gain importance. The 2010 Cancun Accord of

the UNFCCC laid the foundations for accepting migration as a legitimate adaptation

option and could require financial and institutional mechanisms to facilitate the

migration-as-adaptation option. (Scheffran, Marmer, and Sow 2012, 120, 126)

However, evidence of migration as response to climate change is scarce for

small islands. (Black et al. 2011, 9) Relocation is the option of last resort for various

reasons. Both the host governments and islanders themselves resist in implementing

this policy. (Smith and Hemstock 2011, 3) Firstly, few islanders have the social and

economic capital to migrate (Maas and Carius 2012, 656); and few coastal

communities own inland areas to which they could move. In addition, they are

accustomed to coastal life and are unable to readily sustain themselves elsewhere.

(Nunn 2009, 212) Land and culture in the Pacific is intertwined, which implies that

relocation is perceived as threat to the identity and culture of a people. (Weir and

Orcherton 2013, 62)

A convention encompassing their position does not exist, as they require

temporary protection with the possibility for future return. Bilateral agreements should

103

thus be established about the reception of displaced people. The establishment of

soft law would allow states to introduce displacement at their own pace in their

domestic legislation. As an example, the government of Kiribati's strategy is to secure

migration options to New Zealand and Australia. (Yamamoto and Esteban 2014, 86,

277, 278)

Currently, there is no major destination country with a pro-active policy

designed to resettle the people affected by environmental hazards. As it is very likely

that this future displacement will take place, the international community should

establish a framework to guide the process, before the problem begins to become

important. At the moment, international refugee and immigration policy would not

include these people and they would become de facto stateless. (Yamamoto and

Esteban 2014, 276)

This problem has been widely discussed already. Especially atolls could cease

to be considered sovereign states after their islands have been eroded, as

territoriality has long been the exclusive way of exercising political power. These

states could even lose their EEZ if they disappear or turn into rocks. Several

solutions for this issue already exist, proposing to construct a lighthouse to mark the

island for the time it is uninhabitable or to build house on stilts, construct dykes and

raise the island for people to stay. (Yamamoto and Esteban 2014, 4, 160–170)

There are three different scenarios for atoll island states who completely lose

their land, which is either continued recognition, selective recognition or complete

loss of statehood. The last option is unlikely as states which have once been

recognised as such will probably not lose their status. One last thing to add is that

migration has always been used by humans to adapt to changing environmental

circumstances. (Yamamoto and Esteban 2014, 210–219)

104

8 Conclusion and Outlook

This thesis provided a comprehensive introduction to the work of the EU-GCCA in the

Pacific and showed what people working in the field of climate change adaptation

think about the initiative and various aspects of its work. A summary of the most

important results is presented below.

The opinion of experts from the field of climate change adaptation on the

adaptation support of the GCCA in the Pacific is predominantly positive. They

highlight the effort to involve local people as an essential part of GCCA assistance. In

theory, members of the community are enabled to voice their concerns and influence

adaptation projects to the actual needs of the community. However, in practice,

community involvement is still a serious issue for various reasons.

Respondents are of the opinion that too few people are benefitting from GCCA

support. The reason for this probably is that funding is generally limited and that only

few demonstration sites are selected in each country, so that only a small part of the

total population is reached. Another point of critique is missing donor coordination,

which presents itself for instance in a lack of a unified system of funding.

As one of the biggest donors in the Pacific region, the EU is generally known

to educated people in the Pacific. In contrast, the visibility of the GCCA is low.

The major motives for the EU to finance climate change adaptation in the

Pacific mentioned were responsibility, obligation, morals, prestige, international

influence and access to resources. Participants further named the achievement of the

MDGs, stability and peace, shared values and UN votes.

The question on who benefits from GCCA support was often answered with

the local, vulnerable people benefiting, as many projects are directly aimed at

building the resilience of certain communities. Additionally, national structures and

regional organisations were stated to be beneficiaries.

So far, GCCA projects have been appropriate, as they try to act according to

the respective country's NAPA. In-Country Coordinators were recruited to work

together closely with the USP, EU and all stakeholders, NGOs and organisations in

all 15 participating Pacific states. They conduct awareness activities, identify

vulnerable sites, report back to the USP, conduct vulnerability and adaptation

assessments and share experience and knowledge. Vulnerability and adaptation

assessments can be further used by other bodies who want to support adaptive

measures in the respective communities. Projects are community based but also

105

collaborating with local institutions such as relevant government agencies and NGOs

to ensure appropriateness.

The GCCA cooperates regionally mainly with SPC, SPREP, PIF, USP and GIZ.

Nationally, it cooperates with the In-Country Coordinators and climate change related

government ministries. The GCCA is stated to cooperate closely within regional

networks and to have a positive influence on these. Moreover, it is positively

influencing regional and national actors in the Pacific, who are strengthened through

the training of local people in climate change issues at the USP. A network of national

and regional experts is expected to evolve who can support communities,

governments, NGOs, development partners and regional organisations that often

lack deep knowledge on climate change.

The effectiveness of the projects is difficult to measure as many factors

contribute to whether people become more resilient or not and as the efforts of many

donors cooperate. In addition, it is difficult to measure at the moment as the

implementation phase of almost all projects is not yet completed. Participants

commented on this issue that the project impact strongly depends on the willingness

of the people, the capacity of government and donor coordination. Nevertheless, one

can observe that the GCCA is progressing well on reaching its objectives. A results-

oriented monitoring for the USP-GCCA project showed that its effectiveness has

improved in the last year.

Sustainability, effectiveness and appropriateness are closely linked to each

other and have similar preconditions. The GCCA is making an effort for sustainability

and it is hoped for that local people will pursue the adaptive measures after the

projects expired. Important aspects contributing to sustainability which are followed

by the GCCA are the involvement of communities to decide for themselves how to

adapt, capacity building of relevant agencies, awareness raising, experience sharing,

on-the-ground activities and mainstreaming adaptation to climate change into all

sectors. Relocation is a viable adaptive option under certain circumstances and might

be inevitable in the future. It has always been used by humans to adapt to changing

environmental circumstances.

The questionnaire results and the literature review have shown that it is still

too early to evaluate the ongoing GCCA projects in the Pacific region. One can gain

some first impressions but a lot of development will certainly continue to take place.

Moreover, for a more comprehensive and representative study, it is obligatory to

make a field trip to the supported communities. Face to face interviews are more

106

sensible and provide more insight than trying to reach the people via e-mail, as not

all people have access to the internet and the connection is often bad. The time

difference delays e-mail communication and barely allows for telephone interviews.

Another fact realised during the questionnaires is that only a few experts on the issue

of climate change adaptation in the Pacific reside in Europe, where study often

focusses on other regions.

It has to be acknowledged that the Pacific Region is a vast area and as a

result, does easily lend itself to generalisations. Climatic conditions, physical

geography, ethnic background and other issues vary greatly. In addition, many

questions relate not only to the GCCA but also to climate change adaptation issues in

the Pacific in general. This is because the success of adaptation in the region is

dependent on the work of other bodies and the development of climate change in the

future. An analysis of other adaptive actions would be needed to see the GCCA in the

context of other organisations and institutions dealing with climate change.

107

Bibliography

Adger, Neill, Shardul Agrawala, and Monirul Qader Mirza. 2007. “Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity.” In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 717–43. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Barnett, J., and J. Campbell. 2010. Climate Change and the Small Island States: Power, Knowledge and the South Pacific. London and Washington DC: Earthscan.

Black, R., W. N. Adger, N. W. Arnell, S. Dercon, A. Geddes, and D. Thomas. 2011. “The Effect of Environmental Change on Human Migration.” Global Environmental Change 21 (Suplement 1): 3–11.

Brown, J. N., A. S. Gupta, J. R. Brown, L. C. Muir, J. S. Risbey, P. Whetton, X. Zhang, A. Ganachaud, B. Murphy, and S. E. Wijffels. 2013. “Implications of CMIP3 Model Biases and Uncertainties for Climate Projections in the Western Tropical Pacific.” Climatic Change 119 (1): 147–61.

Cambers, Gillian, and Sarah Hemstock. 2014. “Letter to Countries”. GCCA. Cameron, F. R. 2011. “Saving the ‘disappearing Islands’: Climate Change

Governance, Pacific Island States and Cosmopolitan Dispositions.” Continuum 25 (6): 873–86. doi:10.1080/10304312.2011.617879.

Carbon Market Solutions. 2010. “A Report to SPREP on Mobilising Climate Change Funding in the Pacific Islands Region”. Carbon Market Solutions.

Climate Finance Options. 2013. “Global Climate Change Alliance.” Climate Finance Options. http://climatefinanceoptions.org/cfo/node/202.

Council of the European Union. 2008. “Press Release: Inaugural European Union - Pacific Islands Foum Ministerial Troika Final Communiqué.”

Department of Environment. 2007. “Tuvalu’s National Adaptation Programme of Action”. Ministry of Resources, Environment, Agriculture and Lands.

Dornan, Matthew. 2014. “Pacific Plan Reviewed: What next? | Devpolicy Blog from the Development Policy Centre.” http://devpolicy.org/pacific-plan-reviewed-what-next-20130204/?utm_source=Devpolicy&utm_campaign=d09e76f8c6-Devpolicy_News__February_17_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_082b498f84-d09e76f8c6-312052785.

EC. 2007. “Communication from the Commissions to the Council and the European Parliament: Building a Global Climate Change Alliance between the European Union and Poor Developing Countries Most Vulnerable to Climate Change”. EU.

———. 2011. “Press Release: Pacific Islands - EU Relations: Focus on Climate Change.” http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-11-127_en.htm.

EU. 2011a. “Press Release: Pacific Islands and Climate Change: Commission Takes the Lead to Help with Adaptation and Fight Poverty.”

———. 2011b. “Global Climate Change Alliance: Using Innovative and Effective Approaches to Deliver Climate Change Support to Developing Countries.”

———. 2012. “Paving the Way for Climate Compatible Development: Experiences from the Global Climate Change Alliance”. European Union.

EU Delegation Fiji. 2011. “Press Release: EU Supports the University of the South Pacific with €8 Million for Climate Change Education.”

EU, and PIF. 2007. “EU - PIF Special Dialogue: Joint EU-PIF Nuku’alofa Declaration.” ———. 2008a. “Pacific Region - European Community Regional Strategy Paper and

Regional Indicative Programme for the Period 2008 – 2013.” http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/scanned_r6_rsp-2007-

108

2013_en.pdf. ———. 2008b. “Declaration by the Pacific Islands Forum States and the European

Union on Climate Change.” ———. 2012. “Annex to the Joint Communiqué - 2nd EU-PIF Ministerial Meeting:

Joint Pacific-EU Plan of Action on Climate Change 2012-2014.” European Commission. 2006. “Communication from the Commission to the Council,

the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee: EU Relations with the Pacific Islands - A Strategy for a Strengthened Partnership.”

———. 2012a. “Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: Towards a Renewed EU-Pacific Development Partnership.”

———. 2012b. “Press Release: New EU-Pacific Development Partnership to Tackle Climate Change and Fight Poverty.” europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-364_en.doc.

European Communities. 2009. “EU and Developing Countries Working Together”. Publications Office of the European Union.

European Union. 2013. “Pacific-EU Relations.” Delegation of the European Union to Solomon Islands. http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/solomon/pacific_eu/pacific_relations/index_en.htm.

Evangelidis, Ioannis-Pavlos. 2013. “Climate Change in the Pacfic and the EU”, June 14.

Ewing, J. Jackson. 2013. “Financing Climate Adaptation in the Asia-Pacific: Avoiding Flawed Aid Paradigms.” https://www.academia.edu/3611252/Financing_climate_adaptation_in_the_Asia-Pacific_Avoiding_flawed_aid_paradigms.

FAO. 2008. “Climate Change and Food Security in Pacific Island Countries.” Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. 2012. U.S.-EU Statement on the Asia-

Pacific Region. State Department Documents / FIND. United States: Federal Information & News Dispatch, Inc. http://search.proquest.com/docview/1024543968?accountid=105241.

Ferdinand, I., G. O’Brien, P. O’Keefe, and J. Jayawickrama. 2012. “The Double Bind of Poverty and Community Disaster Risk Reduction: A Case Study from the Caribbean.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 2 (0): 84–94.

FSM National Government. 1997. “1997 Climate Change National Communication, Federated States of Micronesia”. FSM National Government.

GCCA. 2012a. “About the GCCA.” http://gcca.eu/about-the-gcca. ———. 2012b. “GCCA Pacific Islands Forum Support Programme.” Global Climate

Change Alliance. http://gcca.eu/intra-acp/gcca-pacific-islands-forum-support-programme.

———. 2012c. “Pacific Small Island States.” Global Climate Change Alliance. http://gcca.eu/regional-programmes/gcca-pacific-small-island-states.

———. 2012d. “Technical Support to the Papua New Guinea Forest Authority to Implement a Continuous and Multi-Purpose National Forest Inventory.” http://gcca.eu/national-programmes/pacific/gcca-papua-new-guinea.

———. 2012e. “Supporting Climate Change Adaptation for the Samoan Water Sector.” http://gcca.eu/national-programmes/pacific/gcca-samoa.

———. 2012f. “The Solomon Islands Climate Assistance Programme.” http://gcca.eu/national-programmes/pacific/gcca-solomon-islands-climate-assistance-programme.

———. 2012g. “Global Climate Change Alliance Support Programme to Timor-

109

Leste.” Global Climate Change Alliance. http://gcca.eu/national-programmes/pacific/gcca-timor-leste.

———. 2012h. “GCCA Thematic Support Programme for Vanuatu.” Global Climate Change Alliance. http://gcca.eu/national-programmes/pacific/gcca-thematic-support-programme-for-vanuatu.

Gillespie, Alexander. 2003. “Small Island States in the Face of Climatic Change: The End of the Line in International Environmental Responsibility.” Journal of Environmental Law and Policy 22: 107–29.

Glantz, Michael H., and Ilan Kelman. 2013. “Thoughts on Dealing with Climate Change…As If the Future Matters.” International Journal of Disaster Risk Science 4 (1): 1–8.

Government of Vanuatu. 1999. “Vanuatu National Communication”. Government of Vanuatu.

Harmeling, Sven, and Christoph Bals. 2007. “Die Millennium-Entwicklungsziele Und Der Globale Klimawandel”. Germanwatch e.V. http://germanwatch.org/klima/klimdg07.htm.

Hay, John E. 2012. “Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in the Pacific: Institutional and Policy Analysis”. UNISDR Asia and Pacific. http://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/publications/26725.

Heuson, Clemens, Wolfgang Peters, Reimund Schwarze, and Anna-Katharina Topp. 2013. Investment and Adaptation as Commitment Devices in Climate Politics. 11. Discussion Paper Series recap15. Frankfurt (Oder): European University Viadrina.

Ide, Tobias, Jürgen Scheffran, and Janpeter Schilling. 2012. “Führt Klimawandel Zu Gewaltkonflikten?” Wissenschaft & Frieden 3: 7–9.

International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative. 2013. “Climate Variability and Change in the Pacific Islands and East Timor”. Australian Government. http://www.pacificclimatechangescience.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/PCCSP-_ClimateVariabilityChange.pdf.

IPCC. 2001. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.

———. 2007. “Summary for Policymakers.” In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, 7–22. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

IPCC WGII. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Summary for Policymakers. Approved SPM – Copyedit Pending. IPCC.

Kelman, Ilan. 2010. “Hearing Local Voices from Small Island Developing States for Climate Change.” Local Environment 15 (7): 605–19.

———. 2013. “No Change from Climate Change: Vulnerability and Small Island Developing States.” The Geographical Journal, 1–10.

Kelman, Ilan, and Shabana Khan. 2013. “Progressive Climate Change and Disasters: Island Perspectives.” Natural Hazards 69: 1131–36.

Kelman, Ilan, and Jennifer J West. 2009. “Climate Change and Small Island Developing States: A Critical Review.” Ecological and Environmental Anthropology 5 (1): 1–16.

Kiribati Government. 2013. “Second Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”. Kiribati Government.

Kuruppu, N., and D. Liverman. 2011. “Mental Preparation for Climate Adaptation: The Role of Cognition and Culture in Enhancing Adaptive Capacity of Water Management in Kiribati.” Global Environmental Change 21 (2): 657–69.

110

Maas, Achim, and Alexander Carius. 2012. “Territorial Integrity and Sovereignty: Climate Change and Security in the Pacific and Beyond.” In Climate Change, Human Security and Violent Conflict, edited by Jürgen Scheffran, Michael Brzoska, Hans Günter Brauch, Peter Michael Link, and Janpeter Schilling, 651–65. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace 8. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-28626-1_32.

Maclellan, Nic. 2011. “Turning the Tide: Improving Access to Climate Finance in the Pacific Islands”. Lowy Institute.

Maclellan, Nic, and Katerina Lebedev. 2011. “Unpacking the ‘Fast Start Finance’ Initiative: A Review”. Pacific Calling Partnership.

Maclellan, Nic, Sarah Meads, and Barry Coates. 2012. “Owning Adaptation in the Pacific. Strengthening Governance of Climate Adaptation Finance”. Oxfam New Zealand.

Malik, Zahida Abdul. 2011. “The Cotonou Agreement: An Assessment.” Journal of European Studies 27 (2): 123–51.

McGray, H., A. Hammil, and R. Bradley. 2007. “Weathering the Storm. Options for Framing Adaptation and Development.” World Resources Institute, Washington DC.

McNamara, Karen, Sarah Hemstock, and Elisabeth Holland. 2012. “Practices of Climate Change Adaptation in the Pacific: Survey of Implementing Agencies (Phase II)”. USP PACE-SD.

Mimura, N.L., L. Nurse, R.F. McLean, J. Agard, L. Briguglio, P. Lefale, P. Payet, and G. Sem. 2007. “Small Islands.” In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, 687–716. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology. 2008. “Solomon Islands National Adaptation Programme of Action”. Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology Solomon Islands.

Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology. 2005. “National Adaptation Programme of Action Samoa”. UNDP.

NAB. 2012. “Vanuatu GCCA Project Brief Dec 2012.” National Advisory Board on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction. http://www.nab.vu/vanuatu-gcca-project-brief-dec-2012.

Nakhooda, Smita, Charlene Watson, and Liane Schalatek. 2013. “The Global Climate Finance Architechture”. Heinrich Böll Stiftung. http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8685.pdf.

Namindrik, Yumie. 2000. “Initial Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”. Republic of the Marshall Islands Environmental Protection Authority.

Natapei, Edward. 2009. “GCCA Thematic Support Programme for Vanuatu.” http://gcca.eu/national-programmes/pacific/gcca-thematic-support-programme-for-vanuatu.

National Environment Service. 2011. “Cook Islands Second National Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change”. Government of the Cook Islands.

Nicholls, R.J., P.P. Wong, V.R. Burkett, J.O. Codignotto, J.E. Hay, R.F. McLean, S. Ragoonaden, and C.D. Woodroffe. 2007. “Coastal Systems and Low-Lying Areas.” In Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

111

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, 315–56. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Niue Climate Change Project. 2000. “Niue Island Initial National Communication”. Government of Niue.

Nunn, P. D., W. Aalbersberg, S. Lata, and M. Gwilliam. 2013. “Beyond the Core: Community Governance for Climate Change Adaptation in Periopheral Parts of Pacific Island Countries.” Regional Environmental Change 14 (1): 221–35.

Nunn, Patrick D. 2009. “Responding to the Challenges of Climate Change in the Pacific Islands: Management and Technological Imperatives.” Climate Research 40 (December): 211–31.

———. 2013. “The End of the Pacific? Effects of Sea Level Rise on Pacific Island Livelihoods.” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 34 (2): 143–71. doi:10.1111/sjtg.12021.

Nurse, L., R. McLean, J. Agard, L. Briguglio, V. Duvat, N. Pelesikoti, E. Tompkins, et al. 2014. Chaper 29. Small Islands. Final Draft. IPCC WGII AR5. IPCC.

Olmos, Santiago. 2001. “Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change: Concepts, Issues, Assessment Methods”. Climate Change Knowledge Network. http://www.iisd.org/cckn/pdf/va_foundation_final.pdf.

PACE-SD. 2012. “Rapid Assessment 2012: Site Selection Process and Criteria”. USP.

PICCAP, and Fiji Country Team. 2005. “Climate Change: The Fiji Islands Response. Fiji’s First National Communication Under the Framework Convention on Climate Change”. Government of the Fiji Islands.

PIFS. 2012. Annex 2 - European Union PFD Reassessment Report. http://www.forumsec.org/pages.cfm/strategic-partnerships-coordination/post-forum-dialogue/.

———. 2014. “CROP.” Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. http://www.forumsec.org/pages.cfm/about-us/crop/.

PNG. 2000. “Papua New Guinea Initial National Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”. PNG.

Przyluski, Valentin, and Stephane Hallegatte. 2010. Climate Change Adaptation, Development, and International Financial Support: Lessons from EU Pre-Accession and Solidarity Funds. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 1710476. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1710476.

Rasmussen, K., W. May, T. Birk, M. Mataki, and O. Mertz. 2011. “Prospects for Climate Change on Three Polynesian Outliers in the Solomon Islands: Exposure, Sensitivity and Adaptive Capacity.” Geografisk Tidsskrift - Danish Journal of Geography 111 (1): 43–57.

Republic of Nauru. 1999. “Republic of Nauru Response. 1st National Communication - 1999 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.”

Republic of Palau. 2002. “First National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”. Republic of Palau.

Russel, L. 2009. “Poverty, Climate Change and Health in Pacific Island Countries.” Menzies Centre for Health Policy.

Samani, Tupeope. 2012a. USP EU-GCCA Mid Year Progress Report for Year 2, 2012. Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development.

———. 2012b. USP EU-GCCA Annual Progress Report for Year 2, 2012. Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development.

———. 2013a. USP EU-GCCA Mid Year Progress Report 2013. Pacific Centre for

112

Environment and Sustainable Development. ———. 2013b. USP EU-GCCA Annual Report 2013. Pacific Centre for Environment

and Sustainable Development. Schalatek, Liane, Sam Barnard, Smita Nakhooda, and Alice Caravani. 2013. “Climate

Finance Regional Briefing: Asia and Pacific”. Heinrich Böll Stiftung. http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7915.pdf.

Scheffran, Jürgen, Michael Brzoska, Jasmin Kominek, Michael P. Link, and Janpeter Schilling. 2012. “Climate Change and Violent Conflict.” Science 336 (May): 869–71.

Scheffran, Jürgen, Tobias Ide, and Janpeter Schilling. 2014. “Violent Climate or Climate of Violence? Concepts and Relations with Focus on Kenya and Sudan.” The International Journal of Human Rights 18 (3): 369–90.

Scheffran, Jürgen, Elina Marmer, and Papa Sow. 2012. “Migration as a Contribution to Resilience and Innovation in Climate Adaptation: Social Networks and Co-Development in Northwest Africa.” Applied Geography 33: 119–27.

SIDS Unit, UNDESA. 2013. “Small Island Matters - Vol 1, Issue 7”. UNDESA. http://www.sids2014.org/content/documents/273Dec_2013_SIM_Final.pdf.

Smith, Roy, and Sarah Hemstock. 2011. “An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Funding for Climate Change Adaptation Using Tuvalu as a Case Study.” The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses 3 (1): 67–78.

SPC. 2011a. “History.” Secretariat of the Pacific Community. http://www.spc.int/en/about-spc/history.html.

———. 2011b. “Global Climate Change Alliance: PSIS.” Secretariat of the Pacific Community. http://www.spc.int/en/our-work/climate-change/gcca.html.

———. 2013. “Joint EU-SPC Project to Protect Tongatapu Coastline.” Pacific Islands Report. http://pidp.eastwestcenter.org/pireport/2013/September/09-04-rl2.htm.

SPREP. 2012. Pacific Climate Change and Environment Outlook. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme.

Supa, Casper. 2012. “The Solomon Islands Climate Assistance Programme.” Global Climate Change Alliance. http://gcca.eu/national-programmes/pacific/gcca-solomon-islands-climate-assistance-programme.

Targeted News Service. 2013. “Climate Action: Helping the Pacific Fight Against Climate Change.” Targeted News Service, August 30.

The Kingdom of Tonga. 2012. “Second National Communication”. The Kingdom of Tonga.

Timor-Leste’s State Secretariat for Environment. 2013. “Executive Summary. Timor-Leste Initial National Communication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”. Government of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste.

Tompkins, E. L., L. Hurlston, and W. Poortinga. 2009. “Foreignness as a Constraint on Learning: The Impact of Migrants on Disaster Resilience in Small Islands.” Environmental Hazards 8 (4): 263–77.

UNDESA. 2014. “Home .:. 2014 Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States.” http://www.sids2014.org/.

UNFCCC. 2014a. “National Communications and Biennial Update Reports from Non-Annex I Parties.” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

———. 2014b. “National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs).” United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/national_reports/napa/items/2719.php.

USP. 2004a. “About Us.” The University of the South Pacific.

113

http://eugcca.usp.ac.fj/AboutUs.aspx. ———. 2004b. “Project Components.” The University of the South Pacific.

http://eugcca.usp.ac.fj/Project.aspx. ———. 2011. “Community-Based Adaptation to Climate Change: A Review of Good

Practices in the Pacific”. USP PACE-SD. ———. 2013. “Who We Work with.” USP - The University of the South Pacific.

http://eugcca.usp.ac.fj/AboutUs/WhoweWorkwith.aspx. Watson, Charlene, Smita Nakhooda, Alice Caravani, and Liane Schalatek. 2012.

“The Practical Challenges of Monitoring Climate Finance: Insights from Climate Funds Update.” http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/7665.pdf.

Weir, Tony, and Dan Orcherton. 2013. “Climate Change Issues on the Pacific Islands: An Overview.” In Climate-Smart Technologies, edited by Walter Leal Filho, Franziska Mannke, Romeela Mohee, Veronika Schulte, and Dinesh Surroop, 51–64. Climate Change Management. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-37753-2_4.

White, I., and T. Falkland. 2010. “Management of Freshwater Lenses in Small Pacific Islands.” Hydrogeology Journal 18 (1): 227–46.

WMO. 2014. “Region V (South-West Pacific).” World Meteorological Organisation. http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/dra/rap/regionV_more.php.

Yamamoto, Lilian, and Miguel Esteban. 2014. Atoll Island States and International Law - Climate Change Displacement and Sovereignty. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. http://www.springer.com/law/international/book/978-3-642-38185-0.

Zahn, Dr. Ulf, ed. 1996. Diercke Weltatlas. Braunschweig: Westermann.

114

Annex A - Participating Experts in Alphabetical Order

Name Institution/ Organisation Position/ Area of Study

Alofa, Penelise University of South Pacific (USP), GCCA Project

ICC Kiribati

Arudovo, William USP ICC Vanuatu

Asitarau, Moses USP ICC Solomon Islands

Prof Barnett, Jon University of Melbourne Resource Management and Geography

Caravani, Alice Overseas Development Institutes Research Officer Climate and Environment

Carruthers, Pasha Secretariat of the Pacific Community

Climate Change Advisor

Catteau, Thierry European External Action Service Attaché Kiribati, Environment

Eckstein, David Germanwatch Referent für Klimafinanzierung und Investitionen

Dr Ewing, Jackson J. Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies, Nanyang Technological University

Adjunct Research Fellow

Fakaosi, Tevita USP ICC Tonga

Hallegatte, Stéphane World Bank Senior Economist

Hedger, Merylyn Overseas Development Institute Research Associate, Climate and Environment

Junghans, Lisa Germanwatch e.V. Consultant for Climate Consequences and Adaptation

Dr Kelman, Ilan University College London Reader in Risk, Resilience and Global Health

Dr Killman, Wulf Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

Program Director CCCPIR

Koppert, Tessa University of South Pacific ICC Timor Leste

Moncada, Stefano University of Malta, Institute of European Studies

Assistant Lecturer, Climate Change, Development Studies

Nainoca, Winifereti UNDP Environment Team Fiji

Nakalevu, Taito Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme

Project Manager PACC

Prof Nunn, Patrick D. University of New England Professor and Head, Social Sciences, Climate Change

Schipper, Lisa Stockholm Environment Institute Associate

Schulte, Veronika HAW Hamburg EU Project Management and Coordination

Dr Singh, Anirudh USP Fiji Associate Professor of Physics

Prof Sovacool, Benjamin Aarhus University Social Sciences

Taloiburi, Exsley Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Acting Climate Change Climate Advisor

Tualemafua, Tapulolo USP ICC Samoa

Wichmann, Vaine USP ICC Cook Islands

Yakub, Naushad USP ICC Fiji

115

Annex B - Qualitative Questionnaire A

Questionnaire: The Image of European Support to the Pacific in Climate Change Adaptation

QA1: What is, to your opinion, the motivation for the EU to support climate change adaptation in the world generally, and specifically, in the Pacific Small Developing States? What do you think are the EU's main interests in the region? QA2: Who benefits how from GCCA (Global Climate Change Alliance) adaptation? QA3: Which specific project/s do you know and what do you like or not like about them? (Do you know about progress and success of (one of) the projects?) QA4: Which social networks are created nationally and regionally through GCCA support? With which organisations/ offices is the EU cooperating? Are new cooperations between actors in the region established? QA5: Are national/ regional actors strengthened or weakened through GCCA support? QA6: Do you think that GCCA-projects have so far been appropriate? (Where do you see the focus of the work of the GCCA? Does it address the needs of the people in the region to reduce their vulnerability to climate change?) QA7: How effective have the adaptive measures of the GCCA been so far? (How well did it meet its objectives? Do states become more resilient and gain adaptive capacity?) QA8: Have they been efficient? (How well inputs such as funds and time were converted into outputs? Does the money actually reach communities?) QA9: Sustainability: Are the projects of a long-term or short-term nature? (Do you think they will persist after the end of the project period and be continued by local people? Is it help to help themselves?) Thank you very much for your participation. Before we come to a finish, I would like to know whether from your point of view I missed something essential. I am grateful for your suggestions and advice.

116

Annex C - Quantitative Questionnaire B

Please rate the following questions on a scale of 1 to 4 !!! Note: The term Pacific refers to the Small Island Developing States north-east of Australia. QB1: Do you have a positive or negative impression of the work of the GCCA (Global Climate Change Alliance). Please enter an x in the table.

1 positive 2 rather positive

3 rather negative

4 negative

QB2: What is your estimate for the importance of the following reasons as motivation of EU support in climate change adaptation? The last two rows are for miscellaneous criteria you can add.

1 important 2 rather important

3 rather unimportant

4 unimportant

Prestige

Resources

Influence

Confession of guilt

Altruism

QB3: Does the support of the GCCA reach many vulnerable (in terms of climate change) people in the Pacific?

1 vast amount

2 many 3 few 4 none

QB4: Do the projects of the GCCA act in accordance to the needs of the local people in matters of climate change issues? 1 stands for extreme consideration, 4 none of it.

1 extreme 2 moderate 3 few 4 none

QB5: Does the EU cooperate closely with regional organisations and institutions? 1 stands for close cooperation, 4 none of it.

1 close 2 moderate 3 few 4 none

117

QB6: Does the GCCA support networking of regional actors in the Pacific or does it rather constrain them? 1 stands for a positive influence on networking, 4 negative.

1 positive 2 rather positive

3 rather negative

4 negative

QB7: Does the work of the GCCA strengthen or weaken the political and economic influence of national/ regional actors?

1 strengthening 2 rather strengthening

3 rather weakening 4 weakening

QB8: Do you have the impression that Pacific States become more resilient and gain adaptive capacity or become more vulnerable?

1 resilient 2 rather resilient 3 rather vulnerable

4 vulnerable

QB9: Does the work of the GCCA facilitate independence or does it create dependence?

1 independence 2 rather independence

3 rather dependence

4 dependence

QB10: Do you have the impression that the local population perceives GCCA support as such (Visibility)?

1 yes 2 partially 3 little 4 no

QB11: Do you want to add something?

118

Annex D – Overview of Answers from QB

Number In %

QB1 total 20 100,0%

positive 13 65,0%

rather positive 6 30,0%

rather negative 1 5,0%

negative 0 0,0%

QB2a total 24 100,0%

important 9 37,5%

rather important 12 50,0%

rather unimportant 2 8,3%

unimportant 1 4,2%

QB2b total 24 100,0%

important 8 33,3%

rather important 7 29,2%

rather unimportant 7 29,2%

unimportant 2 8,3%

QB2c total 25 100,0%

important 9 36,0%

rather important 12 48,0%

rather unimportant 3 12,0%

unimportant 1 4,0%

QB2d total 21 100,0%

important 0 0,0%

rather important 6 28,6%

rather unimportant 9 42,9%

unimportant 6 28,6%

QB2e total 24 100,0%

important 1 4,2%

rather important 11 45,8%

rather unimportant 10 41,7%

unimportant 2 8,3%

QB3 total 20 100,0%

vast amount 2 10,0%

many 8 40,0%

few 10 50,0%

none 0 0,0%

QB4 total 19 100,0%

extremet 6 31,6%

moderate 11 57,9%

few 2 10,5%

none 0 0,0%

QB5 total 23 100,0%

close 11 47,8%

moderate 10 43,5%

few 2 8,7%

none 0 0,0%

119

QB6 Total 19 100,0%

Positive 9 47,4%

rather positive 9 47,4%

rather negative 1 5,3%

negative 0 0,0%

QB7 total 19 100,0%

strengthening 8 42,1%

rather strengthening 10 52,6%

rather weakening 0 0,0%

weakening 1 5,3%

QB8 total 23 100,0%

resilient 2 8,7%

rather resilient 13 56,5%

rather vulnerable 5 21,7%

vulnerable 3 13,0%

QB9 total 19 100,0%

independence 4 21,1%

rather independence 10 52,6%

rather dependence 4 21,1%

dependence 1 5,3%

QB10 total 19 100,0%

yes 4 21,1%

partially 10 52,6%

little 4 21,1%

no 1 5,3%